Comments on: New weapons, new wars

By: Ara

Ara — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:57:59 +0000

Avery good and proven formula, used in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and now being used in India and Pakistan.

By: Raj

Raj — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:40:04 +0000

An effective ABM is good deterrence. Number of nuclear weapons does not matter that much if every missile can be shot down.

By: bmurray

bmurray — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:31:34 +0000

That is exactly what Pakistan has been doing. Spending billions on nuclear weapons while allowing its infrastructure to crumble (schools, roads, rule of law, etc.), and its population to fall into poverty and into the arms of extremists.

By: Dr. D. Prithipaul

Dr. D. Prithipaul — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:38:27 +0000

M. Akram forgets that the UK decolonised at the very time when it became a nuclear power. It colonised with the help of muskets and canon balls. During the span of one generation so many empires based on the most sophisticated weaponries have disappeared: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Belgian, German, Japanese, Russian. He also forgets to mention terror outfits, dear to Pakistan, as a weapon of war. It may be incongruous to say it, but the fact is that since 1492 war and domination – not sharing and amicable mutual understanding and respect – has been the sole vocation of the votaries of monotheistic beliefs. The means that war will remain their major preoccupation as well as of those who have to defend themselves against the parties of God (Jehovah, Jesus, Allah) used as a convenient fig leaf to hide the pretext for a war, any war – slavery, colonisation, civil wars, dynastic wars, religious wars, world wars, genocidal wars., though reason does not find a justification to believe in the existence of God. So long as there will a lab, a scientist and the funds for both, for the manufacture of more and more sophisticated weapons.

By: Shah

Shah — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:17:25 +0000

Why just don’t put aside these so-called realist theories of minimum deterrence, military capabilities and balance of power ? One should stretch upto the size of blanket instead of adding more foreign debts and miseries to the public by reiterating the hollow rhetorics of eating grass.
Cannon were replaced by tanks, fighter aircrats by drones, missiles aroused the need of ABM. This arms race would not stop here and generation after generation would keep eating grass.

By: Sue Sturgess

Sue Sturgess — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:05:29 +0000

what differnece does it make? 1st , 2nd,… 1000th… anyone who explodes a nuclear bomb destroys the entire planet, one way or the other

By: Sue Sturgess

Sue Sturgess — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:03:16 +0000

who benefits from war? the same people get paid to destroy,who get paid to rebuild. War is simply a business

By: Tahir

Tahir — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:05:11 +0000

Thats what happened Iraq as well.

By: human

human — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:15:36 +0000

Even if that means eating grass.

By: Kayenn

Kayenn — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:29:11 +0000

China now has despute with almost all the countries it shares its border with except Pakistan – which gave away large piece of land to develop special friendship……………