Pakistan developed tactical nukes to ‘deter’ India: Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry

Pak Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry said that India had created a gap in the capabilities of the two countries through its cold-start doctrine - developed for use in a possible war with Pakistan.

By: PTI | Washington | Updated: October 20, 2015 9:36 pm
pakistan, pakistan nuclear weapons, pakistani border, pak india war, indo pak war, nawaz sharif, US, Russia, pakistan latest news In August, two major American think-tanks said that Pakistan is on course of possessing nearly 350 nuclear weapons in about a decade, the world’s third-largest stockpile after the US and Russia and twice that of India.

Justifying its growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, Pakistan today said it has developed them to “deter” a possible attack from India after it built infrastructure near border areas to help launch quick response in case of war.

“Our nuclear programme is one dimensional: stopping Indian aggression before it happens. It is not for starting a war. It is for deterrence,” Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry told a news briefing here ahead of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s US trip to hold talks with President Barack Obama.

He explained that Pakistan’s “low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons” would make it difficult for India to launch a war against Pakistan while remaining under the nuclear threshold.

Chaudhry said that India had created a gap in the capabilities of the two countries through its cold-start doctrine – developed for use in a possible war with Pakistan that involves various branches of India’s military conducting offensive operations.

It was the first concrete explanation from a senior Pakistani official on how Islamabad plans to deal with New Delhi’s so-called cold-start doctrine, now renamed the proactive strategy, The Dawn reported.

“It also is a rare explanation of Pakistan’s decision to make tactical nuclear weapons to deal with the possible threat of an Indian aggression,” it said.

There were reports that America is pressing for a deal to restrict Pakistan’s nuclear programme but Chaudhry rejected the impression and said that Pakistan would not sign any nuclear deal with the US during the visit.

Explaining India’s cold-start doctrine, Chaudhry said that under this strategy India had already moved its cantonments close to the Pakistani border. This allowed India also to move its conventional weapons close to Pakistan along with other vehicles and fuel supplies.

By drastically reducing the time required to launch an aggression against Pakistan, India had “created a space for war”, Chaudhry said.

“Our argument is, when you are a nuclear power, you do not create spaces for war. War is no more an option,” the foreign secretary said. “We have plugged the gap India had created. We have the right to do so.”

In August, two major American think-tanks said that Pakistan is on course of possessing nearly 350 nuclear weapons in about a decade, the world’s third-largest stockpile after the US and Russia and twice that of India.

Asked under what conditions Pakistan could sign a nuclear deal with the United States, Chaudhry said: “We are not signing a nuclear deal. No deal, not of any kind.”

In reply to a question about Pakistan joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the foreign secretary said the US policy of getting India included in this group was “discriminatory”.

“We encourage the US to have a non-discriminatory approach, a balanced approach,” he added.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App

  1. K
    khan
    Oct 20, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    Yes he is right Indian dominance has gone
    Reply
    1. R
      Raff
      Oct 21, 2015 at 3:46 am
      Why won't India just leave us alone we don't want any trouble with India nomore we want peace and if you don't want peace then just leave us alone we will manage but please just stop killing Muslims and Sikhs let them live in peace also I know you Hindus Have been slaves all your lifes and now finally you are in power and want to take revenge then go after the english and the arabs why us we never ruled you
      Reply
      1. B
        Bharat
        Oct 21, 2015 at 6:25 am
        No Money to buy normal requirements for the common stani living on streets of stan and this B****tard is only thinking of war with India. So Sorry Beggars have no choice earlier was USA now is China. Mr Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry happy begging.
        Reply
        1. B
          Bharat
          Oct 21, 2015 at 6:21 am
          No Money to buy normal requirements for the common stani living on streets of stan and this B****tard is only thinking of war with India. So Sorry Beggars have no choice earlier was USA now is China. Mr Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry happy begging.
          Reply
          1. B
            Bharat
            Oct 21, 2015 at 6:22 am
            No Money to buy normal requirements for the common stani living on streets of stan and this B****tard is only thinking of war with India. So Sorry Beggars have no choice earlier was USA now is China. Mr Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry happy begging.
            Reply
            1. P
              Pushpinder Harsh
              Oct 22, 2015 at 8:20 am
              Chaudhry is indulging in stan's favorite pastime, which is prevarication. The ground reality is that most Pak Military Stations are located so close to the border with India that as soon as their army moves out of these stations they are on the border. On the other hand, most Indian cantonments were / are located deep inside and spread all over the country. In fact, even today, most are located where they always were. Therefore, even the formations in defensive role needed days to build-up in their defensive positions. Given stan Army's closer proximity to the the borders, Indian Army was at a disadvantage. The same has been partially corrected by relocating some defensive formations closer to the border. When stan's Army keeps harping on 'strategic depth required for their forces', it is ridiculous to propound theories that India has placed its strike forces in the show windows. So much for the ridiculous justification offered by Chaudhry. Even otherwise, if, as claimed, the so called low yield weapons are used against the Indian striking forces, the Nukes will be used within the territory of stan - unless they propose to use the nukes even before they have been attacked. The residual radioactive dust will resettle on large tracts of stan Punjab and Sindh, making the area unsafe for humans for many decades. One presumes that stan has drawn up plans for relocating their Punjabi potion away from these border areas - to areas like Baluchistan. That may be the reason why their Army has been busy trying to decimate the Baluchistan potion. The other issue is how the desute stan is able to churn out Nukes at the scale they are doing. It is a well known fact that there are a number of countries in the Middle East who are the financial backbone of the worldwide terrorism. These are the nations which run with the hare, but pretend to hunt with the hounds. They do not have the brains / know-how to produce Nukes, nor do they wish to antagonize their gullible friend the USA. Therefore, they are financing stan to produce these weapons. Thus, all the Nukes being produced by stan are not for their own use. These Nukes belong to the financing countries. Those who believed the CIA about the WMD possessed by Saddam's Iraq, will also believe the CIA's projections on Nukes being produced by stan. How the desute stan is able to do so, is not of consequence in CIA's scheme of things, because it will expose US Allies - the US has always had a shortsighted approach in the pursuit of their business interests.
              Reply
              1. D
                DIPA Ach
                Oct 20, 2015 at 11:18 pm
                Thank you stan! I used to think india was helpful but what they are currently doing in Nepal, I am like i would do the same if I had a NW.
                Reply
                1. E
                  Elsa Omer
                  Oct 21, 2015 at 11:01 am
                  bloody indians
                  Reply
                  1. Load More Comments