Mumbay attacks: some cuestions related with cooperation and nuclear proliferation
The U.S. has promised India “very active” help to improve its counter-terrorism capabilities while asking Pakistan to act “urgently and transparently” to help catch the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror assaults and prevent future attacks.
The “terrible sophisticated” terror attack “raises questions about the importance of making certain that everything is done to bring the perpetrators to justice, but also to prevent follow-on attacks,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.
“And in that regard, Pakistan has a special responsibility to act,” she said in Copenhagen, after a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whom she briefed about her talks with Indian and Pakistani leaders
Even if Indian state has done very little to stop the persecution against Christians which took place last summer, I really consider that it’s necessary they are helped in these matters. That’s why I just don’t understand why Pakistan has agreed with Afghanistan and Turkey to cooperate in anti-terrorist matters,while they are not doing the same with India (apart from the three countries being Islamic and India being a non-Islamic country).
Apart from that, there is the inherent perils of having both India and Pakistan nuclear arsenals:
The Mumbai terrorist attacks and their potential to re-poison the relationship between India and Pakistan suggests that we should not be too sanguine about the stability of nuclear deterrence in a proliferated world. Even if nuclear weapons tend to encourage mutually-deterring relationships between possessor states (an assumption that, while plausible, is no more than an extrapolation from a single U.S.-Soviet case study and a mere decade of sometimes tension-filled Indo-Pakistani nuclear confrontation), there is no guarantee that any actual possessors’ relationship will be stable.
This is true particularly where bitter regional rivalries are susceptible to inflammation from other factors (e.g., cross-border terrorism and/or squabbles over contested frontiers). One would have to have a great deal of faith indeed in the conflict-moderating impact of nuclear weapons in order to be comfortable that the net result will be more stable and less dangerous than before. It is certainly possible that in such contexts the introduction of nuclear weapons would not increase stability. It would merely worsen the potential downside risks if troubled relationships deteriorate.