MANY an intellectual has questioned Pakistan`s investment in nuclear deterrence, terming it unnecessary and waste of resources in the face of a threat to the country from terrorism. In my opinion this makes it a classic case of comparing apples with oranges.
Nuclear deterrence and counterterrorism efforts address two dif ferent streams of threats. I ask the naysayers, will public health experts agree not to worry about polio any more, if a malaria epidemic breaks out? I would also like to point out to the detractors that the United States is leading international ef forts to deal with the IS and Al-Qaeda being a threat to the US itself, but it has not given up on its strategic deterrent. In fact, despite a structured arms control arrangement with Russia, the US is still undergoing nuclear modernisation that will cost $1 trillion over the next decade. At its own scale, Pakistan is no dif ferent.
In reality, if Pakistan`s army has to remain focused on terrorism for the long haul then it calls for a very robust nuclear deterrence to ensure that any prospects of war are as diminished as possible and the military is resolutely focused on the challenge at hand.
