Indian Nuclear Plant Leaking Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Red Flags Raised Over Radioactive Waste at Indian Point Plants

October 8, 2019 By Abby Luby

Left to right, John Sullivan, Marilyn Elie, Margot Frances, Manna Jo Greene and Jeanne Shaw, members of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, in front of an inflatable, life-size nuclear waste cask last week. Abby Luby Photo

The closure and dismantling of Indian Point plants 2 and 3 in 2020 and 2021, respectively, have raised red flags about the storage and handling of more than 1,700 tons of dangerous radioactive waste.

At a public meeting last Wednesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) answered questions about the decommissioning process. About 90 people crowded into the Morabito Community Center in Cortlandt to ask Bruce Watson, NRC chief of the reactor decommissioning branch, about the regulatory agency’s oversight role during the plant closures.

For three hours, many were frustrated with the unreliable audio system that made it difficult to hear the speakers. A major concern was about Holtec International, a family-owned corporation based in Camden, N.J., slated to purchase, dismantle Indian Point and manage the irradiated nuclear fuel. Although Holtec has more than 30 years’ experience handling radioactive waste, it has come under scrutiny for fast-tracking decommissioning of nuclear plants.

Holtec proposes to dispose of the waste in as little as eight years; the NRC allows 60 years for the process.

“Holtec is a company with a record of bribery, lies and risk-taking. We know the NRC allowed the company into plants in New Jersey and Massachusetts even before objections by citizens’ groups were heard,” charged Richard Webster, legal director for Riverkeeper.

“Can you describe the NRC’s role in approving and selecting companies like Holtec for decommissioning?” asked Peekskill City Councilman Colin Smith during the meeting.

Watson replied that the agency is not privy to contractual details or sale agreements.

“Our sole responsibility is to ensure the applicant is licensed and has the technical and financial ability to own a particular plant,” he said.

When Smith asked for an estimated timeline for transporting the spent fuel rods, Watson said, “Congress promised to take care of high-level waste when they encouraged all these plants to be built. It’s in their ballpark to facilitate the disposal of the spent fuel. It’s way below my pay grade to make that kind of policy. I wish I had an answer for you.”

NRC’s oversight role with Holtec directly ties into the formation of Community Advisory Boards (CABs) as stipulated in a federal law under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Watson indicated that the NRC would be checking in regularly with the progress of the decommissioning, but acknowledged that a heavier oversight role would be put on the Community Advisory Boards.

Many have questioned the authority of the newly formed local CAB, chaired by Buchanan Mayor Theresa Knickerbocker with Cortlandt Supervisor Linda Puglisi serving as vice chair.

“We are all in this together,” said Puglisi in defense of the CAB. “We created a task force two years ago when we learned of the decommissioning and have been meeting monthly. We have a large membership including business people, environmentalists, school officials, chamber of commerce, county executives from Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange, along with state representatives.” Puglisi told the NRC to officially recognize the group as a Community Advisory Panel rather than a board.

Knickerbocker said the Community Advisory Panel was a diverse group with Indian Point supporters and critics.

“We are the eyes and ears and the voice for our community,” she said. “Our agenda is the safe decommissioning of Indian Point. This panel will drive the bus for decommissioning.”

The watchdog group Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC) has supported a funded Citizens Oversight Board comprised of impartial members, independent scientists, experts, first responders, plant workers, environmentalists and other informed stakeholders.

“The board should have a budget to hire experts and have appointed environmentalists and volunteers who hold monthly, open meetings,” said IPSEC member Marilyn Elie.

IPSEC maintains a CAB made up of local politicians who might have financial or economic agendas is problematic. IPSEC has drafted citizens’ oversight board legislation that is expected to be introduced to state, county and local lawmakers in January.

Assemblywoman Sandra Galef (D-Ossining) told Watson the NRC should fund the CAB.

“The NRC allowed the nuclear plants to be here, and now that they are being decommissioned, you should be sponsoring and funding the CABs using money in the federal government budget,” Galef said.

Although Indian Point units 2 and 3 generate about 2,000 megawatts of electricity, Con Ed no longer gets electricity from Indian Point. In 2017, the contract between Con Ed and Entergy expired and was not renewed, according to the utility. Up to that point, Indian Point supplied only 560 megawatts to Con Ed.

With competing solar and wind markets offering cheaper energy, Entergy’s high price for electricity has priced the company out of the market. Today, Entergy is closing its aging plants across the country.

An upcoming forum on decommissioning Northeast nuclear plants is scheduled for this Thursday, Oct. 10 from 1 to 4:30 p.m. at Hendrick Hudson Free Library in Montrose.

Iran’s Khamenei rejects talks with the Merchant (Revelation 18)

Iran’s Khamenei says sanctions failed, no talks with Trump

AFP July 31, 2020 13:01

TEHRAN: Iran will not open talks with the United States that will only benefit Donald Trump, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Friday, insisting the US president’s sanctions policy had failed.

Decades-old tensions between Tehran and Washington have soared in the past year, with the sworn enemies appearing several times to come to the brink of war.

The tensions have been rising since 2018, when Trump withdrew the United States from a landmark nuclear accord and unilaterally reimposed crippling sanctions.

“There is no doubt that sanctions are a crime,” Khamenei said in a televised speech.

“But the smart Iranian has made the best use of this attack, this animosity and benefited… by using sanctions as a means to increase national self-reliance.”

Khamenei said Western “think-tanks admit that the maximum pressure (policy) of sanctions and US force has not succeeded.”

The 2015 deal between Tehran and major powers promised relief from sanctions in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

After abandoning the accord, the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran’s vital oil exports and its access to the international banking system, and pressured allies and rivals alike to fall in line.

Iran has responded by trying to boost its non-oil exports, particularly to neighboring countries.

“This has caused the country’s economy to be naturally less reliant on oil,” Khamenei said, casting the development in a positive light.

Khamenei condemned calls for Iran to open new talks with the United States, saying he would not agree to meetings that were aimed only at boosting Trump’s re-election hopes.

The 81-year-old even called Trump an “old man,” even though he is seven years older than the US president.

“This old man in charge, he apparently made some propaganda use out of his negotiations with North Korea. Now he wants to use (talks with Iran) for the (November 3 US presidential) election.”

Khamenei said that in return for new talks, the US would demand: “Reduce your defensive capability, destroy your regional power and give up the vital nuclear industry.”

“No logic dictates giving into the aggressor’s demands,” he said.

He also accused European partners to the nuclear deal of “having done nothing” to provide Iran with the economic benefits of the accord and said their barter system designed to bypass US sanctions was a “useless plaything.”

The system, called Instex, is meant to function as a clearing house and allow European companies to deliver medical supplies to Iran without being exposed to sanctions.

Britain, France and Germany announced they had carried out the first transaction through the mechanism in late June, over a year and a half after it was established.

Why War Against the China Horn Will Never Happen (Daniel 7)

What Would It Take to Avert Military Escalation With China in the South China Sea?

The US and China’s dance in the South China Sea bears a troubling resemblance to 1914 Sarajevo—and the eve of World War I.

By Michael T. Klare

Sailors observe the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Groups steam in formation as the Nimitz Carrier Strike Force (CSF) in the South China Sea. (3rd Class Dalton Reidhead / Defense Department)

One after another, the Department of Defense has been sending its most advanced and threatening weapons into the South China Sea as part of a concerted drive to remind China of America’s superior combat power.

On July 4, it deployed two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers— the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan—along with their accompanying squadrons of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines; joining them was a nuclear-capable B-52 Stratofortress, flown in all the way from Barksdale Air Force Base, La. On July 15, the guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed within 12 nautical miles of Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef, two tiny islands converted by the Chinese into military bases. And on July 21, two B-1B supersonic bombers, originally designed to carry nuclear weapons, flew over the South China Sea in yet another demonstration of America’s military prowess.

These moves have been accompanied by unusually boastful and menacing language on the part of US military leaders. Speaking of the dual-carrier deployment in early July, for example, the commander to the Nimitz strike group, Radm. James Kirk, stated, “Our operations…are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect critically important rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea.” Similarly, when announcing the dispatch of those B-1B bombers, the commander of the 37th Expeditionary Bomber Wing, Lieutenant Colonel Lincoln Coleman, asserted that such long-distance missions provide “the flexibility for our bombers to operate in any area of responsibility” and “gives us the ability to project air power across the globe.”

All these military moves (and others like them we can expect in the weeks and months ahead) have coincided with the adoption of an alarming new US position on China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea, announced by Mike Pompeo on July 13. Until now, Washington has called for a peaceful resolution of the disputes between China and its southern neighbors—notably Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines—over possession of the tiny reefs and atolls that populate the South China Sea, and over rights to fish and drill for oil in the surrounding waters. In his July 13 statement, however, Pompeo hinted that Washington is now prepared to use force in defending those neighbors against any hostile moves on China’s part.

Positing that China’s claims to most of the islands was “unlawful” and that it was guilty of “bullying” the other countries when they sought to exploit offshore resources that are rightfully theirs, Pompeo asserted that the United States was prepared to assist them in resisting such egregious behavior. “In the South China Sea,” his statement reads, “we seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.”

Given that hostile encounters between Chinese coast guard vessels and the fishing or oil-survey boats of the other countries occur on an almost weekly basis, some incident Pompeo might characterize as Chinese “bullying” of an American friend or ally—thereby justifying a US military response—could arise at almost any time. In fact, such an incident almost occurred in May, when the Navy dispatched three of its warships to nudge away some Chinese vessels that were said to be harassing a Malaysian oil-drill ship.

In orchestrating all these military and diplomatic moves, US officials seem to be proceeding with a sense of magisterial self-assurance—as if China were able to gain a foothold in the South China Sea because of American inattention during the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan and that now, with the United States again asserting its authority there, the Chinese are certain to retire in trepidation. This is evident in the Pentagon statements cited above and the harsh and disrespectful tone of Pompeo’s July 13 statement.

For anyone with any sense of history, this all has a troubling resemblance to the events in Sarajevo in June 1914, on the eve of World War I. At that time, as now, a rising power (Germany then, China now) was confronted by a coalition of prevailing powers (Czarist Russia, Britain, and France then, the United States, Britain, Australia, and Japan now) determined to retain their dominant position.

When, on June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated by Serbian nationalists in Sarajevo (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), the Austrians declared war on Serbia, believing a quick military strike would subdue the extremists. But Russia, keen to support its ally Serbia and fearing the rise of Austria’s ally Germany, mobilized its armed forces in a bid to deter Germany from entering the conflict on Vienna’s side; Germany, in response, mobilized its own forces, prompting Britain and France to mobilize theirs. Each of those actors confidently believed that a powerful demonstration of force would deter its rivals from commencing offensive military action—and every one of these assumptions proved false, with devastating consequences.

Today, it’s easy to detect a similar mood of nonchalance regarding the possible outcome of an armed clash between China and the United States. In response to claims in the Chinese media that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) possesses missiles capable of sinking American carriers in the South China Sea, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper blithely responded, “I don’t know what the Chinese meant by that hollow statement about American carriers being [vulnerable],” but American carriers have operated in the South China Sea since World War II “and we’ll continue to be there, and we’re not going to be stopped by anybody.”

It is not hard to imagine, given this degree of confidence, that top White House officials might be thinking that a small war with China in the South China Sea—intended to demolish Beijing’s bases there and demonstrate the overpowering superiority of American weapons—could be the perfect answer to Trump’s falling poll numbers. Just think of it: Trump delivers a true American “victory” against our newest foe on the very eve of election day!

But it is not just military folk and Republicans who seem to believe that a little war in the South China Sea would result in an overwhelming American victory. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, for example, Michèle A. Flournoy, undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration—and a possible defense secretary in a Biden administration—wrote that China’s expansion into the South China Sea was largely due to American negligence and that any further adventurism on Beijing’s part could be prevented by a conspicuous display of American military strength. “If the U.S. military had the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours,” she wrote, “Chinese leaders would think twice before, say, launching a blockade or invasion of Taiwan.”

However, as was true of all key actors in 1914, all this rests on the assumption that a strong show of force will be enough to convince one’s opponent to accept its inferior status and back off. This is delusional thinking of the sort that led to calamity in Sarajevo in 1914.

Whatever Pompeo and others might say about the legitimacy of China’s occupation of those contested islands in the South China Sea, Chinese officials have stated repeatedly that they are part of China’s sovereign territory and will be defended by the PLA as circumstances require. “China has several times experienced the threats posed by the US in the [South China] Sea with its deployment of multiple aircraft carriers,” said Wang Yunfei, a retired PLA naval officer, on Chinese media. “China’s resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity, sovereignty, and maritime interests will not waver [after] the latest threat posed by the US. The Chinese military is prepared and will deal with the [threat] with ease.”

Just exactly how capable the PLA is of repelling a US military strike is unclear, as the Pentagon possesses a large array of sophisticated weapons capable of neutralizing Chinese defenses; nevertheless, China possesses many “carrier-killing” ballistic missiles, and, even if only a few succeed in their intended mission, even one aircraft carrier on the US side with its crew of thousands would be a calamitous loss. This, in turn, would undoubtedly provoke additional US attacks on China and equivalent retaliation on Beijing’s part, resulting in a regional war and global economic chaos. It is the height of folly, then, to assume that a punitive US military strike in the South China Sea will result in Chinese capitulation with zero cost to the United States.

There are, no doubt, many in the Department of Defense and the US business community who recognize the extent of the danger. Even during those dual-carrier operations in July, when China was also conducting naval maneuvers in the South China Sea, military officials on both sides adopted distancing measures to avoid an unintended mishap or clash between them. At present, however, the voices of caution and reason are being drowned out by those advocating a tough stance toward China and a heedless inclination to employ force. It is essential, then, that members of Congress and the public call for a de-escalation of tensions in the South China Sea and the initiation of high-level discussions among top American and Chinese political and military officials to adopt interim measures aimed at reducing the risk of armed hostilities in the region.

Eventually, China will have to address the claims of its neighbors to certain maritime areas now claimed exclusively by Beijing. The United States can serve as a “friend of the court” (as it were), advising those countries and supporting them in international venues like the United Nations. But it must not risk World War III in a paternalistic effort to teach China a lesson about who is top dog in that distant body of water.

The Russian and China Horns Grow (Daniel 7)

STRATCOM CO: Chinese, Russian Build Up of Nuclear Weapons Will ‘Test’ U.S. Strategic Deterrence

By: John Grady
July 30, 2020 4:52 PM

Borei-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine Vladimir Monomakh (SSBN). Russian Navy Photo

The U.S. is facing a more complex strategic deterrence problem as both China and Russia continue to modernize their nuclear and conventional weapons, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said on Thursday.

“This is the first time we’re going to face two-nuclear capable adversaries,” Adm. Charles Richard said during remarks at the Mitchell Institute.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. has “not had to consider a near-peer adversary in close to 30 years,” he said.

The Kremlin has reached 70 percent of its across-the-board modernization objectives that it set 15 years ago. This build-up “includes several thousand, non-treaty nuclear weapons,” Richard said, referring to short-range cruise and ballistic missiles that are not covered by existing strategic arms control treaties. He noted later that Moscow expanded its nuclear forces unilaterally as the United States reduced its own nuclear weapons stockpile.

In the case of Beijing, “look at what they do, not what they say,” Richard said. He cited China’s “breath-taking expansion” of military capabilities to include adding air-launched cruise missiles to its strategic arsenal. But equally important and “just below the radar” of a military build-up has been the creation of a Coast Guard in 2013 that has more than 250 vessels operating in the East and South China seas backing up Beijing’s territorial claims in those waters. The Chinese could be a strategic weapons peer competitor to the U.S. by the end of the decade, he said.

Moscow and Beijing are modernizing and expanding their nuclear forces, believing that the threat of their use will influence events in their favor during a crisis in the South China Sea or Eastern Europe.

Nuclear deterrence is different in the 21st century than it was in the Cold War, Richard said. Then “you could palpably feel the threat.” Because there was a consensus the threat was real, the investments made in the American triad of strategic weapons systems — ballistic missile submarines, bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles — provided a margin of safety that deterred the Soviet Union from using its weapons to gain advantage in a crisis.

Richard does not expect to see a drop-off in congressional support for the current Pentagon modernization drive because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the federal budget. “Russia did not give up a single nuclear weapon” because of the pandemic. He said the same was true for China.

In a conference call with reporters also on Thursday, James Geurts, the Navy’s acquisition chief, reaffirmed the Columbia ballistic missile program was still the service’s top priority.

Strategic deterrence is “not an issue that we can afford to take risk on. [Columbia] will be prioritized above all others as we go forward,” Geurts said.

Richard said to maintain force survivability the U.S. needs at least 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.

Asked whether he advocated the United States adopt a “no-first-use” policy when it comes to nuclear weapons, Richard said, “we have to be very humble when it comes to policies like that… We’re going to be tested in ways we were never tested before.”

Children Dying Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

The child who died in Gaza, her family and the propaganda war

‘Denial of healthcare outside Gaza is a death sentence for children’: Save the Children

Source Save the Children

Posted 30 Jul 2020

Originally published 29 Jul 2020 Origin View original

Children in Gaza are dying as they are denied urgent healthcare outside the Strip, and more will die if they are not treated soon, Save the Children is warning.

Following the announcement of Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank, the already extremely restricted access for medical patients to leave Gaza for life-saving care was further reduced, due to the end of coordination between Israeli and Palestinian officials. With Gaza’s health system on the brink of collapse after thirteen years of blockadeand the added strain of the COVID-19 pandemic, children’s lives hang in the balance.

Two infant boys have already died since coordination between Palestinian and Israeli authorities ground to a halt. Both boys, one of eight months and the other only nine days old, had heart conditions and needed surgery unavailable in Gaza, but they did not get permission to receive care in time.

There are currently more than fifty children with cancer across Gaza, fifteen of whom are in a grave condition[1] and may not survive without receiving treatment soon. Neither chemotherapy nor radiology treatments are available due to Israeli restrictions on medication entering Gaza.[2]

Before the COVID-19 pandemic and the breakdown in coordination, an average of two thousand people a month applied to receive healthcare outside Gaza, a third of whom required cancer treatment. In April, this plummeted to just 159 applications – the lowest number recorded in over a decade. Even before coordination ended, children, or their carers, were routinely denied permission to leave Gaza to receive medical treatment on security grounds.[3]

Despite the current drop in applications, a third were still rejected by Israeli authorities. In May, unsuccessful applications included a 7-year-old boy with immunodeficiency, who is at high-risk of complications from COVID-19. Twenty-eight other children did not receive permission to leave for treatment in May.

12-year-old Dina* has leukaemia and has not been able to get treatment outside Gaza since the coordination lapsed. She said: *“[My illness] has affected me a lot, to the extent that I can’t walk on my leg. To the extent that I’ve prayed for it to be amputated. [Israel] should lift the blockade so we get good schools and good hospitals, so we can have treatment and nice places to play. So we can live like other children in the world.” *

13-year-old Ahmed* was hit in the leg with shrapnel from an exploding bullet and his application to leave Gaza for surgery on his nerves was denied. He said: “One of the hardest days was when I came out of the operation and they had prepared a wheelchair. I was wondering what the chair was for. And they said, ‘you are going to sit on it and live your life in it’. I cried, from the depth of my heart… I can’t leave Gaza because they closed the checkpoints. My leg is getting worse and worse and I’m anxious about it.”

12-year-old Dina* has leukaemia and has been unable to receive treatment outside Gaza for more than two months.

Save the Children supports thirty children who urgently require medical treatment outside Gaza. Some of these children have been injured during the conflict or in protests and have injuries such as amputated limbs, gunshot and shrapnel wounds, missing eyes, and nerve damage. Others are living with debilitating illnesses such as cancer and heart disease.

“How can there be any justification anywhere and anytime for stopping children from getting life-saving care?”, said Jeremy Stoner, Save the Children’s Regional Director for the Middle East.

*“These desperately sick children need to leave Gaza to survive – there is simply no other option. It’s cruel that children are dying or suffering extreme pain when they can receive treatment just beyond the checkpoints. With every day that passes, the window to help these children closes further”, *continued Stoner.

Save the Children has long called on the Government of Israel to end the blockade of Gaza on the grounds that it is the root cause of ongoing violations of the most fundamental rights of children. Palestinian and Israeli officials must resume coordination of applications for patients to leave Gaza, and Israel must immediately allow children in need of urgent medical treatment to travel in and out of Gaza, accompanied by a parent.

The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should also recommit to negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict through an internationally mediated peace process, based on international law, and in recognition of Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The Palestinian Authority and the international community should take every step possible to protect Gaza patients and promote unhindered access to essential healthcare.

**Name changed for protection *

Spokespeople are available. To arrange an interview please contact:

Claire Nicoll in London: c.nicoll@savethechildren.org.uk; 00447825 663691
The 24-hour press office in London media@savethechildren.org.uk; 0044 7831 650 409.
To support Save the Children’s global COVID-19 emergency appeal, click here.

Note to editors

Restrictions in the eligibility criteria for patients to access essential health services in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak contributed to the lower numbers applying in the first half of May, in addition to patient fears about traveling out of Gaza and the deterrent of quarantine for all those returning after travel also contributed to reduced applications. In the latter part of May, the end to coordination of permits by the Palestinian Authority contributed to the substantially reduced the number of patient and companion permit applications. Despite the low numbers applying during this period, more than a third of patient applications were unsuccessful. See WHO for more information.

Multimedia content available here.

[1] According to the World Health Organisation (WHO)

[2] WHO, Medical equipment in Gaza’s hospitals https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/WHO_GazaMedicalEquipment.pdf

[3] https://euromedrights.org/livingingaza/israels-exit-permit-system-childrens-health-at-risk/

Pakistan Becoming Concerned About the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

Nuclear arsenal - Pakistan has again noted with concerns that the Indian hegemonic designs motivated by extremist ideas and fueling an arms race and buildup of nuclear arsenal can jeopardize the regional peace. In the Opening Statement of her weekly media briefing in Islamabad on Thursday, the Foreign Office Spokesperson Aisha Farooqui said that we have seen reports of recent acquisition of Rafale jets by the Indian Airforce. According to some former senior Indian officials and several international publications these Rafale jets are dual-capable systems that can also be modified as nuclear weapon delivery platforms. Aisha Farooqui said that it is well known that India continues to expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal both in terms of type and number of delivery systems. In addition to this, India has nuclearized the Indian Ocean and continues to increase the readiness of its arsenal through measures such as canisterization of missile systems. It is disturbing to note that India continues to amass military capabilities beyond its genuine security requirement. According to credible and reputable international research institutes, India is now the second largest arms importer in the world. The Spokesperson said that Pakistan has been consistently highlighting the risks of massive Indian arms buildup as well as their offensive security doctrine and force postures, which are adversely affecting strategic stability in South Asia. This arms buildup is being aided and abetted through a policy of exemptions, waivers and supply of advanced equipment, technology and weapons for narrow commercial interests. Such arms transfers also violate the objectives of various export control regimes on preventing destabilizing accumulations of arms in various regions including where there exist outstanding conflicts and disputes. Transfer of advanced systems, where there is an open intention of conversion into nuclear delivery platforms, calls into question the commitment of international suppliers to non-proliferation commitments. Aisha Farooqui said that the world community must dissuade India from its disproportionate arms buildup which could also lead to an arms race in South Asia. The world is already a witness to the bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric by the BJP government in pursuit of a revisionist agenda in the neighbourhood. On Pakistan’s part, we remain open to consideration of measures for crisis management, risk reduction, and strategic restraint. While remaining opposed to any arms race in South Asia, Pakistan cannot remain oblivious to these developments and remains confident of its ability to thwart any ill-considered act of aggression.

Pakistan concerned over Indian lust for building up nuclear arsenal

By Mati -July 30, 2020

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Pakistan has again noted with concerns that the Indian hegemonic designs motivated by extremist ideas and fueling an arms race and buildup of nuclear arsenal can jeopardize the regional peace.

In the opening statement of her weekly media briefing in Islamabad on Thursday, the Foreign Office Spokesperson Aisha Farooqui said that we have seen reports of the recent acquisition of Rafale jets by the Indian Airforce.

According to some former senior Indian officials and several international publications, these Rafale jets are dual-capable systems that can also be modified as nuclear weapon delivery platforms.

Nuclear arsenal – Pakistan has again noted with concerns that the Indian hegemonic designs motivated by extremist ideas and fueling an arms race and buildup of nuclear arsenal can jeopardize the regional peace. In the Opening Statement of her weekly media briefing in Islamabad on Thursday, the Foreign Office Spokesperson Aisha Farooqui said that we have seen reports of recent acquisition of Rafale jets by the Indian Airforce. According to some former senior Indian officials and several international publications these Rafale jets are dual-capable systems that can also be modified as nuclear weapon delivery platforms. Aisha Farooqui said that it is well known that India continues to expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal both in terms of type and number of delivery systems. In addition to this, India has nuclearized the Indian Ocean and continues to increase the readiness of its arsenal through measures such as canisterization of missile systems. It is disturbing to note that India continues to amass military capabilities beyond its genuine security requirement. According to credible and reputable international research institutes, India is now the second largest arms importer in the world. The Spokesperson said that Pakistan has been consistently highlighting the risks of massive Indian arms buildup as well as their offensive security doctrine and force postures, which are adversely affecting strategic stability in South Asia. This arms buildup is being aided and abetted through a policy of exemptions, waivers and supply of advanced equipment, technology and weapons for narrow commercial interests. Such arms transfers also violate the objectives of various export control regimes on preventing destabilizing accumulations of arms in various regions including where there exist outstanding conflicts and disputes. Transfer of advanced systems, where there is an open intention of conversion into nuclear delivery platforms, calls into question the commitment of international suppliers to non-proliferation commitments. Aisha Farooqui said that the world community must dissuade India from its disproportionate arms buildup which could also lead to an arms race in South Asia. The world is already a witness to the bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric by the BJP government in pursuit of a revisionist agenda in the neighbourhood. On Pakistan’s part, we remain open to consideration of measures for crisis management, risk reduction, and strategic restraint. While remaining opposed to any arms race in South Asia, Pakistan cannot remain oblivious to these developments and remains confident of its ability to thwart any ill-considered act of aggression.
Foreign Office Spokesperson Aisha Farooqui
Aisha Farooqui said that it is well known that India continues to expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal both in terms of type and number of delivery systems.

In addition to this, India has nuclearized the Indian Ocean and continues to increase the readiness of its arsenal through measures such as canisterization of missile systems.

It is disturbing to note that India continues to amass military capabilities beyond its genuine security requirement.

According to credible and reputable international research institutes, India is now the second-largest arms importer in the world.

The Spokesperson said that Pakistan has been consistently highlighting the risks of massive Indian arms buildup as well as their offensive security doctrine and force postures, which are adversely affecting strategic stability in South Asia.

This arms buildup is being aided and abetted through a policy of exemptions, waivers and supply of advanced equipment, technology and weapons for narrow commercial interests.

Such arms transfers also violate the objectives of various export control regimes on preventing destabilizing accumulations of arms in various regions including where there exist outstanding conflicts and disputes.

Transfer of advanced systems, where there is an open intention of conversion into nuclear delivery platforms, calls into question the commitment of international suppliers to non-proliferation commitments.

Aisha Farooqui said that the world community must dissuade India from its disproportionate arms buildup which could also lead to an arms race in South Asia.

The world is already a witness to the bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric by the BJP government in pursuit of a revisionist agenda in the neighborhood.

On Pakistan’s part, we remain open to consideration of measures for crisis management, risk reduction, and strategic restraint.

While remaining opposed to any arms race in South Asia, Pakistan cannot remain oblivious to these developments and remains confident of its ability to thwart any ill-considered act of aggression.