United States considering deal to limit Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal

“The expectation that we have is that a deal like the one that’s been discussed publicly is not something that’s likely to come to fruition next week”, Earnest said when pressed about whether Obama and Sharif would talk about it. “But the United States and Pakistan are regularly engaged in a dialogue about the importance of nuclear security”, he said.

Though he did not mention Pakistan while speaking about terrorists “safe havens” during his speech at the White House, Afghan and USA officials have often said in the past a few months that terrorist sanctuaries continue to exist.

Discussions are set to begin Tuesday ahead of the arrival of Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in Washington next week, but when asked if the Obama administration was serious about reaching a deal with Pakistan, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it was “unlikely”. “And I would anticipate that dialogue would include conversations between the leaders of our two countries”, he added. Moreover, even if the negotiation process between the USA and Pakistan eventually leads to a civilian nuclear deal, there is absolutely no reason for New Delhi to lose sleep over it, unless, of course, New Delhi wants to get back at Islamabad for crying foul when the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was being negotiated over a decade ago. The Nuclear Suppliers Group is a group of countries that tries to control the proliferation of weapons through guidlines for nuclear exports and nuclear-related exports. However, he added, the United States does not believe that “any actual weaponry has been transferred yet”. The U.S. government has officially ignored American reports that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal to potentially become the third largest holder of nuclear weapons. First is the hackneyed argument that overstates the importance of Pakistan in maintaining stability in Afghanistan. India has long argued that its nuclear capability gave Pakistan a sense of immunity in conducting terrorist acts against us, without the United States taking cognisance of this fact and acting to curb Pakistan ” s nuclear arsenal and its irresponsible nuclear threats, not as a gesture to us but in pursuance of its own nonproliferation commitments.

A Pakistani official said “a lot of homework needs to be done” before talks can advance.

It remains unclear what types of guarantees the Pakistanis might provide in exchange for US support in entering the NSG, the official said.

Even though the Obama administration’s attempt to broker a nuclear deal with Pakistan may be futile, it’s worth trying if it has the potential to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. One, they point out that Pakistan has a awful track record of nuclear proliferation and that a nuclear deal would be seen as rewarding such irresponsible behaviour.

Under that agreement, India’s nuclear infrastructure was split with a civilian program that is under worldwide inspection, and a military programme that is not. It is indeed better for the worldwide community to be in the know of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, as far as possible, than having absolutely no clue about what it is doing with its nuclear material and technology.

Lavoy has said that Pakistan should be convinced to not deploy long-range warheads that could target countries in line after India. While expressing concern about South Asia being a nuclear flashpoint, it has not rebuked Pakistan for periodically threatening India with nuclear arms.

Obama said the pressure from Pakistan has resulted in more Al-Qaida militants coming into Afghanistan, and there has been the emergence of ISIS presence in the war-torn country.

Adam Entous and Saeed Shah contributed to this article.