Nuclear Weapons threat

STOCKHOLM: More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed around the world and nuclear powers continue investing in new weapon systems, making meaningful disarmament in the near future unlikely, a report published Tuesday said.

“More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2,000 that are kept in a high state of alert,” according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
SIPRI’s report said the world’s eight nuclear powers – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – possess more than 20,500 warheads.
As of January 2011, Russia had 11,000 nuclear warheads, including 2,427 deployed, while the United States had 8,500 including 2,150 deployed, the report said.
The US and Russia have signed a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that calls for a maximum of 1,550 warheads deployed per country.
However SIPRI argued that prospects for meaningful disarmament in the short term are grim as all eight countries seem committed to either improving or maintaining their nuclear programmes.
“The five legally recognised nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so,” the report said, referring to Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.
India and Pakistan are “expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes,” according to the report.
SIPRI Director Daniel Nord said south Asia, where relations between India and Pakistan seem perpetually tense, is “the only place in the world where you have a nuclear weapons arms race.” While Israel, which has never conclusively declared itself a nuclear weapons state but is almost universally assumed to be one, “appears to be waiting to assess how the situation with Iran’s nuclear programme develops,” SIPRI said.
Nord argued that because “nuclear weapons states are modernising and are investing in their nuclear weapons establishments (it) seems unlikely that there will be any real nuclear weapon disarmament within the foreseeable future.” The report said that North Korea “is believed to have produced enough plutonium to build a small number of nuclear warheads, but there is no public information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons.” Nord identified Pakistan “losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal” to a terrorist group as a specific concern.
He also voiced worry over the potential consequences if “Israel or the United States decide that they will have to intervene and do something about the programme in Iran.” Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear programme is non-military, but several world powers have demanded closer international inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites to verify the claim.
SIPRI is an independent institution that receives 50 per cent of its funding from the Swedish state.

Big Deceit

 Pakistan: Every one seems to be happy from the fourth annual budget presented by Dr. Abdul Hafiz. No doubt, this budget includes many friendly policies which attracts Awam. There are lot of subsidies and special attention is given to public sector and tax revenue which is applaud-able.
But behind the screen there is truth which a common man can not understand. Presenting friendly budget is good on one hand but if one see the other side of the picture he would realize that this would bring even worst fiscal problems in near future. The question is How??? let me tell you one thing. Now that every one here knows that in coming elections PPP will fail definitely. People over here are tired of this government. Tired of false promises. So next turn would be of another party. Now by presenting this budget which is enough friendly, this government will try to prove that it is and was the best choice of people. After one year when our national treasures would be left to zero...and next government will not be able to cope with the conditions. In order to stable the economy and government they would definitely hike the prices. Which would seriously effect on their vote bank. And PPP propagandists making best of that moment try all means to prove that they were better than the present government. As in Pakistan people only see that is happening!!!
Its time for us to awake. When will we b united??? Conditions are getting worst and worst with each passing day. Rise compatriots Rise.,,,

 Salman 

Indian army hurdle in way of Siachen solution

KARACHI: The Indian army, and not just the civilian government, has played a role in the ongoing deadlock with Pakistan over the Siachen dispute, according to American and Indian assessments contained in confidential US diplomatic cables.

“On Siachen, Joint Secretary (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran) T. C. A. Raghavan” — who has also served as the Indian Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan — “reported that the Indian army has drawn a line with its political leadership. It has told the government of India that withdrawal was tantamount to ceding the area to Pakistan due to the difficulty of retaking it should Pakistan occupy it,” wrote the New Delhi embassy in September 2008.

While talks held on Siachen this week between the two countries’ defence secretaries may have been inconclusive for a variety of reasons, cables reveal that the Indian army has historically had a role to play, calling into question commonly held perceptions that India’s foreign policy lies firmly in the hands of its civilian government.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is described as having to fight intense domestic pressure, and not just from political hardliners. “Were any deal to crystallise, PM Singh would need buy-in from the army and the BJP to avoid handing himself a political firestorm,” noted a 2006 cable in anticipation of talks on Siachen scheduled for May that year.

In a section titled “First Obstacle: Managing the Military”, the cable described how “Army Chief J. J. Singh appears on the front page of the Indian Express seemingly fortnightly to tell readers the army cannot support a withdrawal from Siachen”.

Although the report acknowledged that “Given India’s high degree of civilian control over the armed forces, it is improbable that Gen Singh could repeatedly make such statements without Ministry of Defence civilians giving at least tacit approval”, it concluded that “Whether or not this is the case, a Siachen deal is improbable while his — and the army’s — opposition continues to circulate publicly. …

“The army says the Siachen presence costs 3,000 crore rupees per year ($670m), which is a small sum when compared to the entire Indian defence budget.”

The cable also noted that Gen Singh’s position on the issue “is reflected in the Foreign Ministry as well”: India would not make a deal on demilitarization without Pakistan signing a map laying out Indian and Pakistani troop positions before withdrawal. The primary purpose of this would be to justify action if Pakistan reneged on the withdrawal agreement.

Any deal, the cable implied, could only come after a go-ahead from the army: “The most telling signpost indicating the GOI is preparing the country for [a deal] would be Gen Singh publicly adopting a neutral (or supportive) position on a Siachen deal to signal in advance that the army is on board, and that the GOI no longer needs to point to army concerns to explain why a deal is not possible.”

This pressure is seen as holding back Prime Minister Singh, who is described as being in favour of a deal — former National Security Adviser M. K. Narayan tells American officials in May 2005 that “the PM had instructed all his subordinates that ‘we need to accept Musharraf’s bona fides, even on Siachen’ … With this guidance in mind, the Ministry of Defence has been instructed ‘to take as flexible a position as possible’”.

A comment written in November 2006 sums up the American view of the matter. “India has repeatedly come ‘very close’ to an agreement on the Siachen issue in 1989, and again (less so) in 1993.

“Each time the prime minister of the day was forced to back out by India’s defence establishment, the Congress Party hardline, and opposition leaders. The Indian army is resistant to giving up this territory under any condition for a variety of reasons — strategic advantage over China, internal army corruption, distrust of Pakistan, and a desire to keep hold of advantageous territory that thousands of Indian soldiers have died protecting.”

Noting that then Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri had recently claimed he expected an agreement on Siachen, the New Delhi embassy added that his statements “go against longstanding conventional wisdom in India that an agreement on Siachen is unlikely anytime soon because the Indian army and the hardline in the Congress Party would not be able to trust Pakistan enough to withdraw, regardless of how much Pakistan is willing to concede”.

America’s own opinion of Siachen is that “this remote region lacks military strategic relevance”. Despite this, cables over the years dating as far back as 2004 describe the issue as an “intractable” one unlikely to be resolved.

According to at least one Pakistani government official, Prime Minister Singh had admitted to this pressure in talks with Gen Musharraf.

In an October 2006 meeting at the Islamabad embassy, then MFA Director General (India) Jalil Jilani “said that he had absolutely no hope of a Siachen solution in the near term, even though Islamabad and New Delhi have already sketched the outlines of a deal.

“Jilani pointed to strong opposition to a Siachen resolution amongst the Indian military and defense establishment as the barrier to a resolution, a hurdle that PM Manmohan Singh had raised in his Havana meeting with President Musharraf in mid-September. Singh had told Musharraf that his military advisers are apprehensive that Pakistan would re-occupy the heights — including Indian posts — were the sides to withdraw from their current lines.”