New York Earthquake: City of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New York earthquake: City at risk of ‚dangerous shaking from far away‘
Joshua Nevett
Published 30th April 2018
SOME of New York City’s tallest skyscrapers are at risk of being shaken by seismic waves triggered by powerful earthquakes from miles outside the city, a natural disaster expert has warned.
Researchers believe that a powerful earthquake, magnitude 5 or greater, could cause significant damage to large swathes of NYC, a densely populated area dominated by tall buildings.
A series of large fault lines that run underneath NYC’s five boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island, are capable of triggering large earthquakes.
Some experts have suggested that NYC is susceptible to at least a magnitude 5 earthquake once every 100 years.
The last major earthquake measuring over magnitude 5.0 struck NYC in 1884 – meaning another one of equal size is “overdue” by 34 years, according their prediction model.
Natural disaster researcher Simon Day, of University College London, agrees with the conclusion that NYC may be more at risk from earthquakes than is usually thought.
EARTHQUAKE RISK: New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from far-away tremors
But the idea of NYC being “overdue” for an earthquake is “invalid”, not least because the “very large number of faults” in the city have individually low rates of activity, he said.
The model that predicts strong earthquakes based on timescale and stress build-up on a given fault has been “discredited”, he said.
What scientists should be focusing on, he said, is the threat of large and potentially destructive earthquakes from “much greater distances”.
The dangerous effects of powerful earthquakes from further away should be an “important feature” of any seismic risk assessment of NYC, Dr Day said.

THE BIG APPLE: An aerial view of Lower Manhattan at dusk in New York City

RISK: A seismic hazard map of New York produced by USGS
“New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances” Dr Simon Day, natural disaster researcher
This is because the bedrock underneath parts of NYC, including Long Island and Staten Island, cannot effectively absorb the seismic waves produced by earthquakes.
“An important feature of the central and eastern United States is, because the crust there is old and cold, and contains few recent fractures that can absorb seismic waves, the rate of seismic reduction is low.
Central regions of NYC, including Manhattan, are built upon solid granite bedrock; therefore the amplification of seismic waves that can shake buildings is low.
But more peripheral areas, such as Staten Island and Long Island, are formed by weak sediments, meaning seismic hazard in these areas is “very likely to be higher”, Dr Day said.
“Thus, like other cities in the eastern US, New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances than is the case for cities on plate boundaries such as Tokyo or San Francisco, where the crustal rocks are more fractured and absorb seismic waves more efficiently over long distances,” Dr Day said.
In the event of a large earthquake, dozens of skyscrapers, including Chrysler Building, the Woolworth Building and 40 Wall Street, could be at risk of shaking.
“The felt shaking in New York from the Virginia earthquake in 2011 is one example,” Dr Day said.
On that occasion, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake centered 340 miles south of New York sent thousands of people running out of swaying office buildings.

FISSURES: Fault lines in New York City have low rates of activity, Dr Day said
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was “lucky to avoid any major harm” as a result of the quake, whose epicenter was near Louisa, Virginia, about 40 miles from Richmond.
“But an even more impressive one is the felt shaking from the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes in the central Mississippi valley, which was felt in many places across a region, including cities as far apart as Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, and in a few places even further afield including,” Dr Day added.
“So, if one was to attempt to do a proper seismic hazard assessment for NYC, one would have to include potential earthquake sources over a wide region, including at least the Appalachian mountains to the southwest and the St Lawrence valley to the north and east.”

India- Pakistan: A Nuclear War is Brewing: Revelation 8

India- Pakistan ; What is Brewing

Col N Bhatnagar

The recent visit of US Defense Secretary to India, Pakistan’s Chief General Bajwa talking about mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, the need to bury the past and look towards living in peace, signing a cease fire agreement on Line of Control or LoC (violated almost 5000 times in last 6 year), Biden administration including India to discuss modalities of peace in Afghanistan along with China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and lastly, India offering Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan to use its air space to fly to Sri Lanka are all signaling that something is brewing.  

What has changed on the ground for all this to happen? It seems counterintuitive amid the Pakistanis openly trying to resurrect the Khalistan movement; drones being used to drop weapons not just in J&K but also in Punjab, tunnels to infiltrate terrorists being dug in, introducing ‘sticky bombs’ (used to devastating effect in Afghanistan in recent weeks). Clearly, the terror factory in Pakistan is continuing to devise newer ways to bleed India. The critical question then is how this agreement came to be as this is hardly conducive to any kind of move towards putting the bilateral relationship back on track.  

If the sequence of events is closely examined then one may be able to read between the lines. 

Examining behaviour of the US 

1 The US State Department has welcomed the cease fire agreement. It has also called on both countries to “continue direct negotiations” and asked Pakistan to prevent “militants from crossing the LoC to launch attacks in India”. So, cease fire implies that Pakistan is now no more sending terrorist from across the border. 

The US study group that was formulated to find ways to facilitate the return of the US troops from Afghanistan, keeping their dignity intact and restoring peace and stability in the war torn country, has recommended a mechanism. The most important element of this group’s policy suggestion is the role assigned to India. It advises setting up two mechanisms to end the war in Afghanistan. First, a regional conference under the banner of the United Nations with foreign ministers of six countries – US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and India – to discuss a “unified approach” on Afghanistan. Second, opening a dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Turkey. 

The US study group has worked on a premise that no other regional country other than Pakistan needs an urgent boost to its economy. So, certain assurances vis-à-vis it’s perceived or true concerns about Afghanistan, India, or the India-Afghanistan nexus may encourage the Pakistani leadership to somehow become a responsible partner in the Afghan peace process. 

The US is also trying to please Pakistan which is an old strategy – old wine in a new bottle. This implies that appeasement has to be at the cost of India.  

Lloyd Austin, the US Defense Secretary tweeted on Friday, “thrilled to be here in India. The breadth of cooperation between our two nations reflects the significance of our major defense partnership, as we work together to address the most pressing challenges facing the Indo-Pacific region”. He expressed his country’s strong desire to further deepen strategic ties with India to address, China’s aggressive behaviour in the region, India’s plan to procure around 30 multi-mission armed Predator drones, India’s plan to acquire 114 fighter jets at a cost of around USD 18 billion from American defense majors -Boeing and Lockheed–Martin. 

It is a fact that with India having no wherewithal and boots on the ground to influence the peace process in Afghanistan, it can do little to help the US in extricating itself with dignity from, and restoring peace in Afghanistan.  

Except for the infrastructure and general good will, India has nothing to offer in Afghanistan. Whereas, Pakistan, a key player, has all the nuisance power to influence the peace process. Trump, the erstwhile US President, had even mocked PM Narendra Modi over the utility of Delhi sponsoring “library” in the war-torn Afghanistan. 

 India can be easily lured

1 On the other hand India, which has always nurtured this peculiar fondness for a leadership role and concern for its world image, can easily be lured and appeased. The Pakistanis are convinced that India just doesn’t have the staying power to maintain a hostile posture for an extended length of time and so does the US, whose military officers have good connections with their counterparts in the Pakistan army. And there are examples to prove this. Why did Nehruji agree to unilateral cease fire and referred Kashmir to the UN? Why did Shastriji sign the Tashkent agreement? Why did Indira Gandhi let go a golden opportunity to settle the Kashmir issue at Shimla in 1972, when she had 90,000 Pakistan soldiers in her grip? Why did we not test nuclear weapons and continued lecturing the world on nuclear disarmament when our own neighbor China, with whom we had already fought a bloody war in 1962, had acquired nuclear weapons in 1967 and, Pakistan carried out five tests precisely barely within a week of India’s tests (a clear vindication of our doubt that Pakistan’s supporters tacitly allowed it to acquire nuclear weapons and they kept pressuring us to sign NPT and not Pakistan)? Besides this urge, India has many issues on which it can be arm twisted: human rights violations, ‘Hindutva’, abrogation of article 370, etc.

2 Thus, very soon it will not be surprising that we may find hundreds of arm chair scholars in India writing articles (like they did post Nuclear tests in 1999) – India is a land of apostles of peace, India has never conquered territories but has won the hearts, we cannot change our neighbours, India cannot behave like a big brother, and so on. And this is quite visible even now, when the venomous speeches by Imran Khan and Bajwa are being deliberately played down by the Indian media. 

This is possibly being done to pressurize the Indian Government to start talks with Pakistan. But the moot point is what will talks with Pakistan achieve? For a beleaguered Pakistan it will be a big achievement. Firstly, it will help a harassed Imran Khan politically. Secondly, it might in a way remove the last hurdle for Pakistan to get off the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This may happen as India by starting the talks would legitimize the Pakistan regime and exonerate Pakistan of all the charges of money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing. Thirdly, Kashmir once again will be back on the agenda and this will please Pakistan no end.  

However, for India the talks with Pakistan in the backdrop of what is likely to happen in Afghanistan over next few months will prove to be disastrous. Talks with Pakistan will only help Pakistan getting off the hook and bring succor to Imran Khan, who has just survived a political crisis at home. Last but not the least Pakistan will use talks to put back Kashmir once again on top of the agenda.  

Bottom Line

Whether India has boots or no boots on ground in Afghanistan, it can do very little to influence the peace process and stop the inevitable from happening. A triumphant Taliban marching in Kabul will embolden the Jehadis all over including in Kashmir, creating more problems for India than for any other country in the region.  

Thus, India must keep opposing return of the Taliban and continue to follow the same policy of not engaging with PAKISTAN till it gives up cultivating and sponsoring terrorism.  India must stick to its views and convey to the world that Taliban is a terrorist outfit and, Pakistan which created and nurtured it is a bigger menace. 

Most of all, we need to reconcile to the fact that an unstable, weak and disabled Pakistan is a better guarantee for peace in India instead of a resurgent Pakistan.

Babylon the Great’s nuclear arsenal: Daniel 7

The U.S. Military’s Nuclear Arsenal Is What Keeps Us Safe

For the past decade, two administrations and twelve annual sessions of Congress have agreed on a strong bipartisan basis to both modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal and simultaneously continue building such weapons in an arms control framework.

In a nation dangerously divided about public policy, such a consensus is a national treasure the country should not lightly give up.

That is not to say there are not some controversial measures in the nuclear modernization of America’s deterrent. But, in fact, key elements have been widely supported with nearly 98 percent of the funding requested for this past decade being approved by Congress.

Leaders of both parties have sought to have arms control—the New START Treaty of 2010 between the United States and Russia now extended for five years—the framework within which the United States maintains its triad of nuclear forces, but with the former designed to accommodate our deterrent requirements, not the other way around.

To that end, 92 percent of all United States nuclear forces are governed by the New START rules.

But the New START rules assume the United States will build twelve Columbia-class submarines that never have to be re-fueled, saving billions over their expected sixty-year lifetime.

And acquire at least one hundred B-21 stealth bombers which give the United States an extraordinary coverage of adversary targets we need to hold at risk, while at the same time New START special counting rules do nothing to impinge on the conventional bomber force.

As well as buying the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), replacing Minuteman, and which will last through 2075, with a remarkable modular capability that will cut maintenance costs in some areas by fully 70 percent, while meeting the upgraded Strategic Command deterrent requirements. One key House vote in 2019 was a resounding 266–166 in favor of proceeding with the ICBM modernization plan.

Not only are the three triad platforms being fully funded by Congress, but the two additional long poles in the tent have also secured very widespread support. In a world of growing cyber concerns, the nuclear forces need a new nuclear command and control network, known as NC3, and this applies to all elements of the triad whether legacy or modernized systems.

In addition, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been working to stabilize the warhead life extension and nuclear fuel and pit production infrastructure that the country had let deteriorate. Over the past decade, a number of remarkable public servant leaders at NNSA have moved much of the NNSA business to being on schedule and within budget, a not insignificant accomplishment.

Since the United States first fielded a nuclear triad of ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers, twelve administrations, six Republican and six Democrat, have resisted calls to eliminate the ICBM force, cut the number of submarines significantly, or eliminate the cruise missile for the U.S. bomber force.

Policy ideas such as “no first use” have also been rejected, as well as the de-alerting of U.S. missiles, both land- and sea-launched.

Since 1962, when the first Minuteman missile went on alert on the day President John F. Kennedy revealed there were Russian nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba, U.S. missiles have been on alert for some seventy million minutes, and not once has the president ever ordered the missiles to be launched.

As Kennedy revealed after the Cuban missile crisis, “Minuteman was my ace in the hole” that prevented Armageddon.

One particularly important factor in the current decade-long progress in nuclear modernization has been relatively strong and consistent funding. Despite the Budget Control Act, the nuclear forces modernization programs secured strong funding, which allowed marked progress in upgrading the U.S. deterrent.

A critical element in Congressional support was also the consensus understanding that over the long haul, fully 50 percent of America’s nuclear costs are simply to maintain nuclear legacy system that are variously going to be between forty-two to sixty years old prior to replacement. Congress recognizes that the current U.S. nuclear deterrent force is the oldest since the dawn of the nuclear age some seventy-five years ago.

And as such further realizes that the prompt attention to modernization will save considerable resources, as sustainment costs of the to be replaced legacy systems continue to escalate.

This is why America’s defense leaders, especially the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, have urged Congress to move modernization forward at “the speed of relevance.”

Critical to the success so far is that despite some differences, the four previous Nuclear Posture Reviews, or NPRs, going back to just after the end of the Soviet empire, contained widespread agreement on the path forward.

Finally, consensus also exists in how Congress views the threat. It is understood Russia has modernized 92 percent of its long-range nuclear forces while fully 55 percent of its overall nuclear arsenal comes under no formal arms control limits.

And that China while shielding its nuclear forces from scrutiny, is now projected to at least double and probably redouble its nuclear arsenal in the next five years.

Consensus and agreement are hard to achieve in Washington. But with respect to America’s nuclear deterrent, which is the nation’s most important priority and the bedrock upon which all U.S. security rests, a bipartisan agreement remains and must continue to guide us through the next decades.

Peter Huessy is president of Geo-Strategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland, a guest instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy on nuclear deterrence history, and the creator of a nearly four-decade-long series of Hill nuclear deterrent breakfast seminars.

Image: Reuters.

Biden refuses to pull the trigger in Iraq

Despite three rocket attacks in a week on US targets in Iraq, Washington yet to respond

Updated 23 February 2021 RAY HANANIA February 23, 2021 05:26

CHICAGO: A week after five Americans were injured and a foreign contractor working for the US was killed during a rocket attack on a military base near Erbil International Airport in northern Iraq, Washington has yet to decide how to respond to the escalation of violence.

In the meantime there have been two additional attacks on US-linked targets in country: at least four missiles hit Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad on Feb. 20, leaving one person wounded, and on Monday two rockets landed in the Green Zone near the US embassy in Baghdad. There were no reports of casualties in the latest attack.

It is widely suspected that Iran is behind the attacks but the Biden administration has so far been hesitant to assign blame, stating after the Feb. 15 attack in Erbil that it is “assessing” who is responsible and will respond “at a time and place of our choosing.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday that President Joe Biden has not given up on pressuring Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons, as he addressed Iran’s disruptive activity in the region.

“Iran has been not standing down but acting up in the region with various destabilizing actions, attacks on our own forces in Iraq and elsewhere, (and) on our partners,” Blinken said when he was asked whether the US had surrendered its leverage on Tehran by agreeing to enter into negotiations for a return to 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018.

“So the problem has gotten worse, not better. And President Biden believes strongly that strong, principled diplomacy is the best way to try to deal with these issues, to put the nuclear problem back in the box and to push back on Iran in other areas.” Earlier White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reiterated that the priority with Iran remains preventing the regime obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“We don’t anticipate taking additional steps, as in snapback — snapping back of sanctions in advance of that,” she said. “This is about having a conversation about the path forward. “And, yes, part of that, as we look ahead, would be a desire to have a conversation about their role in the region, their use of ballistic missiles, and that certainly is the administration’s objective.”

Last week Blinken joined French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, and UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab in issuing a joint warning about the attacks.

“We the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America condemn in the strongest terms the Feb. 15 rocket attack in the Iraqi Kurdistan region,” they said.

“We offer our condolences to the victims, their families and the Iraqi people. Together, our governments will support the Government of Iraq’s investigation into the attack with a view to holding accountable those responsible. We are united in our view that attacks on US and coalition personnel and facilities will not be tolerated.”

No one has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks and the militants have been identified only as “Iraqi armed groups.”

However many analysts, and Iranian dissident groups, believe the blame lies squarely with Tehran.

“There is no question that the Iranian regime is behind the recent spate of rocket attacks on the US military bases and the Baghdad embassy,” said Ali Safavi, an official with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran. “It has coined phony names for its terrorist proxy groups in fear of a harsh response. “These attacks are an attempt by Tehran to raise the stakes in the nuclear negotiations, as the ball is in its court because both the Europeans and the US have predicated any new talks on the Iran nuclear deal on the regime halting its violations and strictly abiding by the terms of the JCPOA.

“The international community should not blink and should adopt a firm approach because the ruling clerics understand only the language of decisiveness and power. Any concessions will be construed as weakness and will only embolden the regime.”

Tensions in Iraq heightened in January last year when Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, who was considered the second-most powerful person Iran after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iranian officials vowed to extract “severe revenge.” The situation in northern Iraq is further complicated by the uneasy relationship between the US and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has criticized Washington for protecting Kurdish forces. Erbil is the capital of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region. Shortly before the Feb. 15 missile strikes there, Kurdish militants executed 13 Turkish hostages, including soldiers and police officers. Ankara argues that the build-up of Kurdish forces in northern Iraq represents a threat to Turkish security.

Blinken previously said he called Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Khadimi on Feb. 16 to reassure him that Washington remains committed to the safety of Iraq, and to express his “outrage” at the attack on Erbil. He also spoke with Masrour Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government. He added that he had encouraged Al-Kadhimi to continue to work closely with the regional government to address violent extremism.

Hamas celebrates its terrorism outside the temple walls: Revelation 12

Hamas Celebrates a Terror Attack on Purim, 1992

Palestinian children compelled to participate in a Hamas military parade. Photo: Twitter.

Hamas’ Al Qassam website is celebrating the anniversary of a 1992 slashing attack that killed two, including a woman waiting to enter a Purim party.

On March 17, 1992, an Arab terrorist from Gaza went on a rampage on a Jaffa street with a machete. He murdered Ilanit Ohana, 19, of Bat Yam, who was standing near a business where she had just gotten a job as a clerk.

A heroic Arab who owned a nearby garage, Abed Abdelghani, 44, rushed to help her and was stabbed to death as well.

The terrorist then went through the streets and injured some 20 people, mostly schoolgirls waiting to enter a Purim party.

People thought the terrorist with a machete was just someone in a Purim costume.

This is what Hamas and its allies celebrate.

Israel’s war crimes outside the temple walls: Revelation 11

Israel Receives International Criminal Court Letter on War Crimes Probe, Details Focus on Gaza and Settlements: Report

The International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Israel has reportedly been sent a letter from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague listing the main areas of its investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Palestinian terrorist groups.

According to a Channel 13 report, the one-and-a-half page letter, which was received by Israel over the weekend, provides details about the three areas the ICC probe will focus on: the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas, also known as Operation Protective Edge; the demonstrations along Gaza’s border with Israel in 2018; and Israel’s settlement policy.

Israel now has 22 days to respond to the letter, which was neither published by the ICC nor officially acknowledged to have been received by Israel. A spokesperson for Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs declined an Algemeiner request to comment.

Meanwhile, Israel’s National Security Council is said to have met for consultations on how to respond to the allegations, but no decision has yet been made on the course of action. Israel has already argued that the international court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Outgoing ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who will be replaced in June by British lawmaker Karim Khan, first announced the opening of the investigation on March 3 into alleged war crimes by Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem since 2014.

Israel President Reuven Rivlin, ahead of his visit with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, called the international court’s decision “morally and legally bankrupt.”

“Any attempt to pressure Israel through international bodies and the cynical political exploitation of international law is doomed to fail and will contribute nothing to improving relations between us and the Palestinians,” Rivlin wrote on Twitter. “We will never apologize for the right and the duty to protect our citizens from all threats to their security. We have seen the damage that politicization has done to UN human rights bodies, and see the damage being done to the International Criminal Court right now through political pressure.”

To make the case against the ICC decision, Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry has launched a new website to showcase its position on the question of the international court’s jurisdiction, with the support of international legal experts.

According to the website, the “ICC was created to act as a court of last resort with the capacity to prosecute individuals, when national jurisdictions for any reason are unable or unwilling to do so. The Court was never intended to pursue democratic states with robust and effective legal systems. The ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israel as only sovereign states can delegate criminal jurisdiction over their territory to the Court.”

“The ICC decision illustrates the outcome of a politicized process and the campaign against Israel led in recent years by the boycott and delegitimization organizations, backed by terrorist organizations and the Palestinian Authority,” Minister of Strategic Affairs Michael Biton told The Algemeiner in an emailed statement.

Pakistani will never sign a nuclear treaty: Revelation 8

Ratification Of TPNW: A Pakistani Perspective – OpEd

Sher Bano*March 19, 2021

Pakistan’s flag. Photo by Erum Khan101, Wikipedia Commons.

In October 2016, more than 120 countries at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) decided to ban nuclear weapons. Based on that, in July 2017 ‘TPNW’ (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) was agreed upon and opened for signature in September the same year. However, it was till the end of the year 2020 when the treaty got 50 ratifications which was a prerequisite for it to be entered into force. Since January 2021, after a 90 days completion of 50 ratifications, the treaty is now entered into force. According to the terms and conditions of the treaty the countries that had ratified the treaty are not allowed in any circumstances to test, manufacture, develop, acquire or produce any kind of nuclear weapons. Neither India and Pakistan nor the other nuclear-weapon states have signed the treaty. The occasion that was being considered a major landmark by the United Nations lacked the participation and consent of major nuclear powers of the world. Pakistan believes that it is not bound by the obligations of the TPNW as it is vital to take into account the security concerns of all the states before taking any measure on nuclear disarmament.

Soon after the treaty entered into force on 22 January 2021, Pakistan’s foreign office stated that the treaty was not within the disarmament negotiating forums established by the United Nations. Other than that, it has failed to take into account the interest of the prime stakeholders as it lacked participation from any major nuclear-weapon state including Pakistan. The foreign office also pointed out that, in 1978 during the first session of UNGA that was dedicated to nuclear disarmament, a consensus was drawn regarding the implementation of disarmament measures. According to that consensus, it was agreed that during any disarmament process, the right of security to all the states would be kept in mind. In this regard, the ultimate objective should be to limit the military forces and arms acquired by the states in a way that does not undermine its security. Pakistan is of the view that the only way to achieve this prime objective is through non-discriminatory international cooperation and by undertakings that are agreed upon universally. For the states to acquire undiminished and equal security, it is necessary to have a process that is based on consensus by all relevant stakeholders.

The treaty is not in any manner the part of international law and neither does it contribute to the formation of any new customary ‘IL’ (International Law). Moreover, the only pertinent body to address matters related to nuclear disarmament is the ‘CD’ (Conference on Disarmament). Pakistan is wholeheartedly committed to the motive of having a nuclear-weapons-free world through a non-discriminatory, comprehensive, universal, and verifiable convention on nuclear weapons. The objective of any nuclear disarmament measure must be to promote stability, peace, and security at both the global and regional levels by including the legitimate interests of all the states.

One of the reasons based on which the nuclear-weapon states are quite reluctant to adopt TPNW apparently is that for most of these states nuclear weapons ensure deterrence that is necessary to prevent a war or a conflict. The sole reason behind the acquisition of nuclear weapons by these states was to deter the enemy from attacking or to avoid any armed conflict that would result in massive destruction. Furthermore, the concept of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD) is also significant in this regard. It is argued that nuclear disarmament cannot be separated from nuclear deterrence. Especially in the South Asian region, where India and Pakistan have a history of troubled relations, nuclear deterrence is believed to be a key component to maintain a strategic balance. Even for NATO, the credible deterrence is based on the mix of conventional, nuclear, and missile defence capabilities. TPNW does not cater to these security concerns of ‘NWS’ (Nuclear Weapon States) for which nuclear deterrence is an important aspect of their security policy. All these states argue that nuclear weapons would continue to enhance their security even in the foreseeable future hence the treaty seems a little unrealistic. Moreover, any reduction in nuclear arsenals cannot be acquired by forcibly banning it; but can be attained through a step-by-step and a legitimate process over the course of time.

Hence having ignored the on-ground strategic and military realities, TPNW, just because of the numbers of ratification seems to put forth something that is nothing but just a moral victory. Especially, when the nuclear-weapon states both NPT and non-NPT are not even part of this treaty, its relevance for the international non-proliferation regime becomes even more indeterminate.   However, the fact remains that Pakistan has always been in favor of the test bans and the only reason behind not signing the NPT was its discriminatory nature and the complex regional dynamics that compel Pakistan to maintain a credible and reliable nuclear deterrence posture.  It has also proposed to sign the ‘Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’ (CTBT) if India is also willing to do the same. Hence, there is a need for a non-discriminatory and unbiased international non-proliferation mechanism that would incorporate the security concerns of all states. Given the complex and ever-changing dynamics of the South Asian strategic and security environment, there are very less chances that both India and Pakistan would sign any such treaty especially at the cost of undermining the deterrence equilibrium. 

*The writer is working as a Research Affiliate at the Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), a non-partisan think-tank based out of Islamabad, Pakistan