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.
YusufLugmaan Lahore