UK Horn Will Keep Their Nuclear Weapons (Daniel 8:8)

Trident: Majority of Britons back keeping nuclear weapons programme, poll shows

Exclusive: Survey reveals lower public support for Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to keep subs without warheads
HMS Vigilant, one of Britain’s four Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines, at its Faslane base in Scotland
HMS Vigilant, one of Britain’s four Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines, at its Faslane base in Scotland Getty
A smaller proportion, three out of 10 (29 per cent), support the plan floated by Jeremy Corbyn to keep the submarines but to send them to sea without warheads.
A further 20 per cent oppose any form of Trident renewal, according to the survey of 2,000 people by ORB.
This means that Britain is split down the middle on whether to retain nuclear weapons. Some 51 per cent of people back full renewal of Trident, while a total of 49 per cent prefer either non-nuclear submarines or reject any renewal.
Mr Corbyn, a long-standing opponent of nuclear weapons, has said he would never press the nuclear button and hopes a Labour will will change the party’s policy of supporting renewal. But Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB International, said the survey suggested that support for full Trident renewal may have grown since last year following the rise of Isis and an increase in the security threat in Britain.
Opposition to full renewal is highest in Scotland, the home of the Trident fleet. Some 38 per cent of Scots oppose any form of renewal, while 36 per cent back full renewal and 26 per cent favour non-nuclear  submarines.
People who voted SNP at last year’s general election are more likely to oppose any form of Trident renewal (60 per cent) than supporters of other parties. Yesterday Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and Scotland’s First Minister, dismissed Mr Corbyn’s plan for non-nuclear Trident submarines as “ridiculous” and a sign of Labour’s “tortured debates” on the issue.
Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, she challenged Mr Corbyn to “stamp his authority” on his party and whip his MPs to vote against Trident when the Commons decides shortly whether to keep it. She said his plan to give his MPs a free vote would leave his party “without a shred of credibility.”
One in four 2015 Labour voters (24 per cent) rejects any form of Trident renewal, while the others are equally divided between full renewal and the Corbyn alternative of non-nuclear submarines (both 38 per cent).  So the Labour leader’s middle way, which would preserve the jobs that depend on the Trident programme, is more popular with his party’s supporters than outright opposition, which may encourage him to press ahead with the compromise plan.
There is strong backing for a full Trident upgrade among Conservative voters,  77 per cent of whom back the proposal while only 6 per cent oppose any renewal. A majority who voted Liberal Democrat last year (53 per cent) also back full renewal.
ORB found that men (59 per cent) are more likely to favour full renewal of Trident than women (43 per cent). Women are more receptive to Mr Corbyn’s alternative (37 per cent) than men (21 per cent). There is also a big age divide, with those aged 65 and over (66 per cent) twice as likely to back a full Trident upgrade than 18-24 year-olds (33 per cent).

Nuclear Horns Prepare For World War III (Revelation 16)

World’s 5 Major Nuclear Weapon States Now Involved in Syria

syrian civil war, russia, united states, france, china, england, britain, uk, usa, united kingdom, america, islamic state, isis, terrorism, nukes, nuclear bombs
With the latest addition of Russia, the world’s five nations with the largest holdings of nuclear weapons are now involved in the Syrian Civil War. An infographic by the Federation of American Scientists can be seen below.

Russia recently joined the fight in the Middle East, with Putin pledging to help root out ISIS in Syria. However, Russian actions seem more inline with propping up the beleaguered Assad regime by attacking Syrian rebels supported by the United States. The New York Times writes:

Russia expanded its bombings on Friday, saying its warplanes struck seven targets, including a command post and training camp near Raqqa, the northeast Syrian city that the Islamic State has converted into the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate straddling Syria and Iraq. Until now, Russia had hit territory that was not dominated by ISIS but, in some cases, where American-supported rebels were located.

With Russia’s latest actions, nearly 20,000 nuclear bombs are now possibly at play in the Middle East.

The Incompetence of the Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear bomb convoys travelling across the UK suffer 70 safety lapses

Errant UK Nuclear Convoy

Errant UK Nuclear Convoy

Herald Scotland
Published on 3 August 2014

A new log of incidents obtained from the MoD reveals vehicles have suddenly broken down, fuel has leaked, brakes have overheated, alarms have malfunctioned and many other vital systems have failed in convoys on the move between July 2007 and December 2012.

The convoys, which ferry Trident nuclear warheads to and from the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport on the Clyde, have also gone the wrong way, been delayed, been diverted and lost communications. Incidents have happened on average more than once a month, with by far the highest number – 23 – logged in 2012.

The revelations have drawn fierce criticisms from leading Scottish Nationalist and Labour politicians, as well as campaigners concerned that the convoys’ cargoes pose unique and unacceptable dangers, but the MoD insists they are safe.

Perhaps the most serious incident occurred late in the afternoon of July 25, 2011, when a convoy command vehicle broke down on the northbound carriageway of the M6 near junction 20 in Cheshire.

The commander’s official report of the incident, released with large sections of text blacked out by the MoD, gave a vivid description. The vehicle “suffered a sudden and dramatic loss of power and was forced to pull onto the hard shoulder of the motorway together with the rest of the convoy assets”, he wrote. Nuclear warhead convoys can include up to 20 vehicles.

This blocked the busy road and, according to a truckers’ website, closed two lanes and caused 10-mile tailbacks. The MoD said the vehicle had suffered a “fuel system failure” that turned out to be a manufacturing fault which had to be rectified across the whole fleet.

During a convoy trip in January 2012, five incidents were reported by the MoD, including a “fuse-box failure” and “security system air leak” on the heavy-duty nuclear warhead carrier; a “fire tender brake fault”; and “reduced braking” on a command vehicle. The gun port flap of an escort vehicle also “opened inadvertently”.

A June 2012 convoy ran into problems after it was halted because of a “suspension system defect” in an armoured escort vehicle. “During an unplanned stop to investigate above incident,” the MoD reported, “a manhole cover collapsed under a further escort vehicle.”

In January 2009, a nuclear warhead carrier suffered an “fuse-box failure, meaning a spare truck had to be used. In November 2010, the spare truck itself suffered an “unspecified break down”.

During a rest break in April 2008, a fuel leak was discovered from an escort vehicle as well as an oil leak from a warhead carrier. An escort vehicle’s brakes reportedly overheated in September 2008.

In July 2010, a convoy strayed off route due to a “commander error”. The convoy was delayed by 45 minutes until it found an approved route to bring it back on course.

In March 2012, the convoy had to be diverted because of the “proximity of low-flying at MoD establishment”. According to the MoD log, it was often diverted or delayed because of bad weather, traffic congestion, road works or accidents.

Computer software also had to be upgraded after four false alarms wrongly suggested the warhead carrier was overheating. In 2010 and 2011, the convoy’s blue lights, speed sensors, sirens and warning lights failed 11 times.

The locations of most of the incidents have not been disclosed by the MoD, but many will have been on the regular convoys that carry nuclear weapons for maintenance between Coulport and the bomb plants at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire. The convoys have been seen travelling through Glasgow twice this year, on January 29 and early on July 11.

As well as the M6 and the M74, convoys have used eastern routes including the A1, the A68 and the M9. Other cargoes transported around England as part of the UK’s nuclear weapons and submarine programme include plutonium, highly enriched uranium and tritium.

Details of the nuclear convoy mishaps, divided into 56 “engineering incidents” and 14 “operational incidents”, were released to the monitoring and campaign group, Nukewatch, in response to Freedom of Information requests. Details of a further 67 safety incidents during nuclear convoys between January 2000 and June 2007 were previously provided to the Sunday Herald.

“Some of the safety incidents on the MoD’s list were relatively serious and, had bad luck caused events to play out in a different way, could have resulted in harm to motorists, or the convoy crew, or damage to the deadly cargoes,” said Jane Tallents from Nukewatch.

“It only takes a moment’s thought to see that, far from being a benign insurance policy which keeps the public safe, nuclear weapons actually increase the risks that we all face. The MoD should not be moving nuclear weapons around the country if it can’t guarantee to do so safely.”

The SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, Angus Robertson MP, angrily condemned the MoD’s safety record. “Any one of these incidents should be of huge concern – a catalogue of 70 is utterly unacceptable,” he said.

“In the same month we find out that nuclear bombs trundled through Scotland’s biggest city under cover of darkness, it is revealed that previous convoys have actually gotten lost, suddenly lost power, suffered brake failures and breakdowns.”

He added: “It is dangerous to pull over on any busy road, but unquestionably more dangerous if you are transporting nuclear warheads. If the MoD cannot read a map properly or do basic maintenance, I have virtually no faith that it could respond in a serious emergency.”

Glasgow Labour councillor and former MSP Bill Butler, who convenes Scotland’s nuclear-free group of local authorities, welcomed the Sunday Herald’s revelations. He also highlighted the 20-vehicle nuclear warhead convoy seen going through Glasgow two weeks ago.

“I shudder to think what would have happened if this convoy had been involved in a serious traffic accident or a malicious incident. We now know that convoys are regularly involved in incidents that could easily have become more serious,” he said.

“I urge the MoD to improve its safety record, talk to council emergency planning officers more regularly and reduce the number of convoys running through Scotland. It is another reason why we need to get rid of nuclear weapons.”

A major emergency exercise run by the MoD and other public agencies in September 2011 imagined a nuclear convoy becoming embroiled in a “catastrophic” pile-up on the M74 at Bellshill, near Glasgow. The scenario envisaged a warhead carrier overturning, catching fire, leaking plutonium and uranium, killing two people and contaminating 100 with radioactivity.

In July 2005, the Sunday Herald revealed an internal MoD report warning nuclear warheads could accidentally explode if involved in a major crash. A bomb’s key safety feature could be disabled, enabling a nuclear reaction to unleash a burst of lethal radiation, termed an “inadvertent yield” by the MoD.

But last week the MoD denied that public safety was under threat from nuclear convoys. “The safety of the public is our priority during any movements of our nuclear material, and we monitor all convoys closely,” said an MoD spokeswoman.

“Any incidents, however minor, are recorded and investigated thoroughly and action is taken where appropriate. At no point has the public been put at risk and our nuclear convoys continue to operate safely accompanied at all times by military police.”

The US and UK … One of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Obama Approves Secret Nuclear Weapons Deal With UK

The Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

The Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

President Barack Obama has quietly agreed to a secret ten-year deal with the United Kingdom to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and materials—sparking concern among advocates of nuclear disarmament, who say the countries should be cooperating to dismantle—not develop—their arsenals.

The deal would extend the terms of a “Mutual Defense Agreement” struck in 1958 between the U.S. and the U.K. that has been renewed regularly since it was formalized, with the most recent renewal in 2004. The agreement has played a critical role in building up the nuclear arsenals of both countries and stems from nuclear cooperation dating to the 1940s.

President Barack Obama said in a message to Congress issued July 24 that he has signed off on a renewal of the deal that will “permit the transfer between the United States and the United Kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons; nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information; material and equipment for the development of defense plans; training of personnel; evaluation of potential enemy capability; development of delivery systems; and the research, development, and design of military reactors.

Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and former senior policy adviser to the secretary of energy under the Clinton administration, told Common Dreams that the latest renewal “will not go into force until a certain amount of time elapses and Congress does nothing to stop it.”

Obama notes that amendments have been added to the agreement regarding “nuclear threat reduction, naval nuclear propulsion, and personnel security.” However, he does not clarify the changes, and the full details of the deal are kept secret in both the U.S. and the U.K.

The U.K.-based watchdog Nuclear Information Service warns in a recent report that the deal with facilitate developments including the creation and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and submarines and the creation of new nuclear research. According to the organization, the “relationship and activities” that the deal enables are not compatible with the obligations of either country under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Alvarez said that the extension of the deal is “business as usual—standard boiler plate stuff” and is likely to breeze through Congress.

However, nuclear ‘business as usual’ has fallen under increasing criticism, with people around the world pushing their governments to move away from nuclear weapons. President Obama said in a a 2009 speech that nuclear non-proliferation would be a key tenet of his foreign policy, declaring, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

But in his message about the deal, Obama takes the ongoing role of a “nuclear deterrent” as a given for both the U.S. and the U.K.: “The United Kingdom intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future. Based on our previous close cooperation, and the fact that the United Kingdom continues to commit its nuclear forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I have concluded it is in the United States national interest to continue to assist the United Kingdom in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.”

A report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that, as of the beginning of 2014, the U.S. had 7,300 nuclear warheads, with the U.K. possessing 225.

The deal has whipped up controversy in the U.K., where—as Richard Norton Tailor reports for the Guardian—it is critical to the highly controversial Trident nuclear weapons system which is fiercely opposed by anti-nuclear advocates.

According to the Nuclear Information Service report, “The nuclear relationship between the USA and the US is not a partnership of equals. The UK relies on unique US facilities and capabilities for support to the extent that its nuclear weapons programme cannot be regarded as technically independent from the USA.”

UK One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Keeping Trident nuclear weapons ‘in UK’s national interest’

UK Trident Missile

UK Trident Missile

It is in the UK’s national interest to keep the Trident nuclear weapons system, a group of former ministers, diplomats and generals have argued.

Maintaining a nuclear capability
could help deter threats to the UK’s security in future, their report concluded.

But they said continuous patrols could be relaxed while the UK must also show it is serious about working towards further international disarmament.

A final decision on whether to renew Trident will be taken in 2016.

The decision has been put back until after the 2015 elections following disagreements between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

While David Cameron supports the like-for-line renewal of the UK’s existing submarine-based ballistic missile system, the Lib Dems say the number of submarines could be reduced from four to three to save money.

Publishing its report, The Trident Commission said it believed that “retaining and deploying a nuclear arsenal” was necessary to protect the UK and to fulfil the country’s international responsibilities as a Nato member.

It said Trident met the “criteria of credibility, scale, survivability, reach and readiness” and alternative delivery options touted “simply on the basis of possible but speculative cost savings” should not be contemplated.

The commission’s members include former Conservative foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Labour defence secretary Lord Browne and former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell as well as former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Guthrie and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the United Nations.

Their report stated that a nuclear capability should not be justified on the grounds of it being an “insurance policy” against an uncertain future or to maintain Britain’s diplomatic standing in the world.

The rationale for keeping Trident, it added, lay in its ability to counter “credible” threats to the UK’s security.

It identified three scenarios in which such threats could arise; from a long-standing nuclear state with an “aggressive posture”; from an existing or emerging nuclear state which “enters into direct strategic competition with the UK”; a “massive overwhelming” threat involving weapons of mass destruction.
“If there is more than a negligible chance that the possession of nuclear weapons might play a decisive future role in the defence of the UK and its allies in preventing nuclear blackmail, or in affecting the wider security context within which the UK sits, then they should be retained,” the report stated.

“The impact of the UK’s falling victim to ongoing strategic blackmail or nuclear attack is so significant that, even if the chances appear slim today, there is sufficient uncertainty surrounding the prospect that it would be imprudent to abandon system that have a high capacity to counter such threats.”

The commission was divided over the question of whether the current practice of always having one submarine at sea at any other time should be maintained.

Some members argued that continuous-at-sea patrolling should continue until there was an “improvement in the security environment” while others argued that without a direct threat to the UK’s interests, this could happen immediately while retaining the capacity for increased patrols at times of crisis.

But the commission was united in its call for the UK to consider what it could do to further the cause of nuclear disarmament and to discourage proliferation.

While acknowledging the steps that had been taken since the end of the Cold War, it said the UK could consider a further reduction in missile and warhead numbers, enhanced verification procedures and commitments to control or decrease stocks of fissile materials.

“The commission would recommend that the Ministry of Defence study the steps down the nuclear ladder more thoroughly to give greater confidence to the international community that we are considering such steps seriously in preparation for multilateral disarmament negotiations,” it said.

Armageddon: England One of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear Weapons: Toward Abolition or Armageddon?

 

European Nuclear Arsenal

European Nuclear Arsenal
 
Global Research, May 26, 2014
People still clearly remember that on April 5, 2009 the U.S. President Barack Obama excited an audience in Prague by declaring that his government “will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.” As the only nuclear power to have ever used a nuclear weapon, he said, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. Indeed, the U.S. has not only moral responsibility but also legal responsibility for the victims as the nation that committed a crime against humanity by indiscriminately killing tens of thousands of people and causing lifelong radiation sickness to many survivors.In his speech, Obama also added ‘this goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime.’ Clearly, this goal will never be reached if the U.S. continues to spend ever larger sums on nuclear weapons, overshadowing all other nuclear powers, as the Obama Administration has been doing since the speech in Prague.

On April 29 this year, at the Third Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller stated in her speech: ‘Indeed, it is the United States’ deep understanding of the consequences of nuclear weapons’ use – including the devastating health effects – that has guided and motivated our efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate these most hazardous weapons.’

However, despite her claim of “deep understanding [of] the consequences of nuclear weapons’ use,” in the detailed budget for fiscal 2015 released in mid March this year Obama yet again asked for a substantial increase in funding to support nuclear weapons research and production programs under the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration. The proposal includes a seven percent increase in the nuclear warhead budget from $7.7 billion in FY 2014 to $8.3 billion in FY 2015. This budget request sets a new record for DOE nuclear weapons spending, exceeding even the Cold War high point in 1985 under President Reagan’s military buildup. The plan, moreover, is to increase the military budget to an astounding $9.7 billion by FY 2019, 24 percent above FY 2014.

A large proportion of this budget is for “modernizing” nuclear weapons — both warheads and delivery systems. Among the priorities is the B61 Life Extension Program, designed to extend the life of B61 nuclear bombs by an additional 20 to 30 years. The Obama Administration is requesting $634 million, up 20 percent from FY2014, for this program, which has already catapulted from an original estimate of $4 billion to more than $10 billion. Currently 200 of the B61 bombs are located in Europe.

While rebuilding nuclear weapons at exorbitant expense, Obama proposes to slash the budget for dismantling these weapons by 45 percent, from an already paltry $54.2 million to $30 million. No additional funding has been allocated for a nuclear waste clean-up program, and the National Nuclear Security Administration’s $790 million in spending on nuclear nonproliferation programs is to be cut by 21 percent, or $152 million. Amongst these programs is the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a program that plays a key part in the effort of preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear and radiological materials that could be used as weapons of mass destruction.

According to the study entitled Projected Costs of Nuclear Forces 2014 -2023 issued in December 2013 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would cost the U.S. government a total of $355 billion over the next decade to maintain and “modernize” the nuclear weapons stockpile, delivery systems and research and production complex. This would be almost 70 percent more than senior officials have predicted over the next decade. According to the report, The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad: U.S. Strategic Modernization Over the Next Thirty Years, published in January 2014 by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, ‘Over the next thirty years, the United States plans to spend approximately $1 trillion maintaining the current arsenal, buying replacement systems, and upgrading existing nuclear bombs and warheads.’

It is clear from this official data that the U.S. government has no intention at all to “take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons” despite repeated rhetoric on the reduction of nuclear weapons by Obama himself and his senior staff. Indeed this is the ultimate irony that cannot be ignored: the U.S., under the president who won the Nobel Peace Prize is holding piles of nuclear weapons, while demanding that North Korea and Iran give up their nuclear programs, threatening them with military might. It is not surprising, therefore, that other nuclear power nations such as Russia, China, England and France are also adopting similar policies to “modernize” their own nuclear weapons. In 2012 China officially replaced its “non preemptive nuclear strike” policy by one that permits “the use of nuclear weapons for the purpose of defense,” clearly indicating the possibility of conducting a preemptive nuclear strike.

The best way to confront such a perilous world situation plagued by nuclear weapons would be to make illegal both the use and possession of such weapons with the aid of a new international convention as soon as possible, and then assure implementation of phased elimination of all nuclear weapons. For the last several years, various NGOs campaigning against nuclear weapons have been promoting this idea at different international conferences, in particular at the Conference: Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, first held in March 2013 in Oslo, and then in February 2014 in Mexico. (In 2010, I proposed my own idea on this issue through HANWA, a Hiroshima-based anti-nuclear civil organization. Please see here.)

During the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) conference held in Hiroshima in April 2014 some NGOs also organized various events in the city and asked NPDI member nations to quickly adopt and promote the illegalization of nuclear weapons. However, some NPDI member nations including Japan and Australia continue to firmly support U.S. nuclear strategies, claiming that the U.S. nuclear deterrent is necessary to protect nations like theirs under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. This explains why official statements demanding nuclear arms reduction by the Japanese and Australian governments always end up using the same rhetoric as Obama and his senior staff. In particular, Japanese politicians like the current prime minister, Abe Shinzo, and the LDP Secretary General, Ishiba Shigeru, not only support the U.S. nuclear deterrent but strongly believe that Japan should maintain the capability to produce its own nuclear weapons by running its own nuclear reactors as a form of indirect nuclear deterrent.

The problem is that the idea of a nuclear deterrent is widely accepted as a defense policy by many people from both nuclear and non-nuclear power nations. Unfortunately, even some people with anti-nuclear sentiments reluctantly accept it as one of the gradual steps towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. At the same time, it can be said that there is now nearly global consensus that the use of nuclear weapons in any form is a crime against humanity. Needless to say, possession of a nuclear deterrent equates to preparation for the use of nuclear weapons to commit a crime against humanity. In accordance with the Nuremberg principle, a plan or preparation to commit a crime against humanity is a crime against peace. Therefore, the nuclear deterrent, that is, the possession of nuclear weapons is, in itself, a crime against peace in accordance with international law. In addition, the purpose of a nuclear deterrent is to provide a constant threat to other nations. Such an action is a clear violation of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” In other words, it can be said that a nuclear deterrent is an act of terrorism. Accordingly, a person or nation who maintains a nuclear deterrent rather than participating in their phased destruction should be regarded as a terrorist.

In order to abolish nuclear weapons from this planet, it is necessary to introduce a new international convention prohibiting both the use and possession of nuclear weapons. To achieve this goal, we need global consensus on the above-mentioned idea that a nuclear deterrent is a crime against peace.

On April 24, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed lawsuits in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague to hold the nine nuclear-armed states accountable for flagrant violations of international law with respect to their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. such international legal action is an effective way to promote and disseminate the concept of the criminality of nuclear deterrents throughout the world.

See also the James Corbett on GRTV on the threat of nuclear war.

Yuki Tanaka is Research Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute, and a coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal. He is the author most recently of Yuki Tanaka and Marilyn Young, eds., Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth Century History and of Yuki Tanaka, Tim McCormack and Gerry Simpson, eds., Beyond Victor’s Justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial Revisited. His earlier works include Japan’s Comfort Women and Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II.

Nukes, Nukes Everywhere

Global Nuclear Arsenal

Global Nuclear Arsenal

Nuclear weapons, since their induction into arsenals, have generated many concepts. In contemporary scenario, the rationales share these concepts in analyzing the nuclear competition in South Asia. There are many questions regarding Pakistan’s national security together with nuclear capability. Why does Pakistan tend to maintain nuclear arsenal? Is India an existential threat to Pakistan? How can Pakistan’s conventional weaponry guarantee national security? Would India out-compete Pakistan? Is Pakistan’s internal writ shrinking? These questions are directly or indirectly linked to the Pakistan’s nukes.

John J. Mearshiemer maintains that the great powers maximize their relative power. He explains further that these powers do not enlarge the existing power due to power-lust but due to the compulsions of the anarchic nature of the international system. [i]

Thus, the arsenals are mainly built for pursuit of the national security. The states possibly consume their energies in order to cope with the threat. Pakistan in south Asian region exists as the second-largest state with both military and economic power potential. Its policy-making junta is keen in making sure to cope with the external threats. Since its creation in 1947, it shared antagonistic and adversarial relation with the eastern neighbor.

Given the hostility, Pakistan left no stone unturned in an attempt to ensure the national security. The nuclear weapons are the outcome of the aforesaid approach. It is worth-mentioning that the region is more stable than ever before since Qadeer Khan in an interview with Kuldip Nayyer in 1985 unveiled the nuclear capability. Thus, no one can deny the fact that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the outcome of broad-based strategy to solidify the national security. Likewise, the established tenet of national-security policy will in future be maintained.

Similarly, Pakistan according to civilian and military leadership is still sensitive regarding the developments being made in India. It is true that the region is reported to be destabilized whenever the balance of power is disturbed. Michael Krepon is of the view that India competes with China and will compete it regardless of what Pakistan does. Now, if India asserts to compete with Beijing, ultimately it would enlarge its military power given the approach of offensive realism.

The more New Delhi increases its military power, the larger concerns Islamabad would have. With this perception, the New Delhi cannot be absorbed as normal and fraternal neighbor. Can anybody assure Pakistan of the Indian neutral behavior towards its neighbors if it becomes the most powerful nation in the world? Its presence in Afghanistan is particularly adequate to deny this optimism vis-a-vis Pakistan. Therefore, it is irrational to ignore that the perception-based policies in South Asia would forcibly be pursued.

Some analysts like Michael Krepon uphold that Pakistan cannot compete with India in subject of conventional military capability. In actuality, they observe the quantity where the latter outnumbers the former. Nonetheless, quantity matters more than quality. Under this perspective, Pakistani armed forces induct the western state-of-the-art equipment and systems that are more advanced and effective than what Indian possess the Soviet technology in the military systems.

Pakistan air force operates the mixture of the US, French, Chinese, and the PAK-China jointly manufactured systems. It can provide an immense fire power to the ground forces. In all spheres like air superiority, interception and interdiction, and ground attack, it is capable of giving surprise to the rival. Rhetorically, Pakistan, owing to the quantity, is not far behind India in the subject of conventional military capability. Nonetheless, it equally vies with India.

On the question of Pakistan’s failure against India in competition, an impartial analyst can assess how valiantly Pakistan survived during the last 14 years’ war-like scenario. On the other hand, Pakistan tremendously ensured the safety of nuclear weapons. It successfully coped with the terrorists in Swat and Balochistan. Despite of all menaces, Pakistani defense capability is safe and sound and is likely to give immense demonstration whenever the time demands.

Pakistan’s
internal writ is restored. There is not a single area that is out of the central government’s writ. As far TTP’s bastion is concerned, they are disintegrated and deployed in the remote mountainous areas. It was Pakistan air force’s vigorous strike that recently forced them to come to dialogues. In presence of the certain terrorists, it is unfair to conclude that the government’s internal writ shrinks.

To wind up, Pakistan in military form is really hard to be engulfed. Its nuclear weapons are safe. Economically, it will boom up since 2015. Therefore, it is ideal to live without any rivalry. India and Pakistan should realize each other’s status. That is how the nuclear normalcy can work. Significantly, it remains still a nuclear military power that cannot be underestimated.