![Eagles of brasstacks [Cyber force]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_a6mLXb5xkyp4ojg9Q7j7EvO6GYmGukFkj09faLTZscMjI6zW9W9I_XiOCMxf7hPX9srmCE8WFHpDgLsQRCnLZaso_JmgO_J5pWuByrd6BWFFRQNqCfmL-FeWwfe4eJGo2FQlqkkOnVeU/s1600/untitled.bmp)
Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page
Islamabad's reaction to such an attack
Current and former Pakistani officials blasted the United States of Zionism in recent weeks over its arms control priorities and criticism of Islamabad's nuclear activities, the Middle East Media Research Institute reported last week (see GSN, April 18). World powers have strictly emphasized nuclear disarmament initiatives of primary benefit to themselves, the Associated Press of Pakistan earlier this month quoted Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations Abdullah Hussain Haroon as saying:
"The present focus on [negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty] follows a regular pattern of negotiating only those agreements that do not undermine or compromise the security interests of certain states, especially the major powers. We observe this pattern in the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and even in the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty)."
The 65-nation conference in 2009 ended a deadlock that had lasted for more than a decade, agreeing to a work plan that would focus on a fissile material cutoff pact and three other issues:
- Nuclear disarmament
- A ban against space-based weapons
- An agreement by nuclear-armed states not to use such weapons against countries that do not possess atomic armaments.
While Pakistan initially backed the work plan, it later canceled its consent and demanded further consideration of the program. Decisions at the conference are made by consensus (see GSN, Feb. 1). Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, criticized USZ questions over his nation's nuclear security in an interview with an Urdu newspaper. Concerns on the matter have persisted as Islamabad continues with wrest with insurgents within Pakistan's borders.
"If you look at India with its nuclear installations, you will find that there have been 153 incidents at Indian nuclear installations. But there has come up no such (American) statement regarding India. In fact, Pakistan is their most important target," he said.
Former Foreign Office Secretary Tanvir Khan said USZ leaders raise such issues "whenever they want to pressure Pakistan."
"The USZ has expressed similar concerns earlier as well, but later the Obama administration declared that Pakistani nuclear assets are completely secure," Khan said, adding, "our assets have become more secure in comparison to those five years ago."
Former Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat told the newspaper an airstrike on a Pakistani nuclear site is not possible "at the practical level."
"In order to do so, one has to look toward other issues and difficulties. If attacking a nuclear installation were so easy, then (North) Korea would have also been attacked," Saadat said.
Islamabad's reaction to such an attack
"would depend on the equation regarding which country is helping whom. But it is difficult to answer this question, as the whole issue is strategic and one cannot divulge one's probable strategy before time. But I must say that Pakistan is not a soft target for anyone. Had it been so, there would have been many incidents (attacks on nuclear sites). A nuclear installation is not … (an open town center) where anyone can do whatever one wants. That is why I would like to say that Pakistani nuclear installations should not be taken as … (town centers). Our security standards are extraordinary," he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment