Pakistan moves ahead of India in nuclear stockpile

[WishLivePak]

So was I, completely neutral. I did not display any burning, and I said both countries have enough tech to deal with their enemies.

True, in the last sentence. But you spoke of India much, how she will have what and whatnot.

Having 100 nukes does not mean that every single one of them can be delivered.

True. That's why you invest and make your missles better, faster and whatnot. Because it is not logical to send 10 missles to lahore because not all of them will reach.

some may be undeployable because of disruption of command and control.

If there is disruption in command and control, then you have serious issues. These are sensitive weapons. They must be operational when required. It's not a lone F16 or MIG sitting on the runway and it not working, you require another jet. You have what, 600 jets? Does it mean you need 600 nukes?

shooting down of aircrafts

I suppose you're talking about aircraft carrying missle (jet can't outrun the missle). Anyway, India's regional enemies only require surface to surface missle. Why would it need to have an aircraft deliver missle when it can do so from amristar to lahore? By the time the missle hits lahore, only then will the jets be in the air.

Why do you think both India and Pak made a hundred warheads and not just ten?

Because it's their mentality. That's why I said they require better capability than laugh about they have more weapons. If they had capability, I wouldn't have made a post.

Since they don't have better capability, they're spamming the warheads to act as deterrence.

For that matter, why do you think USA or Russia have enough warheads to lay waste to the entire solar system?

That was their mentality. And they required aircraft to deliver weapons then. If you're to send some 100 aircraft over russia, how many will make it? Russia is a big country, as is USA. They don't border side by side, like Pakistan and India. How much is distance from Lahore to Amristar? How much is distance from NYC to Moscow?

Now they have missles that can travel much faster. Plus they have AC and submarines roaming around which can also deliver the nuclear weapon fast enough. It's like a mini US island travelling near Russia equipped with, PERHAPS surface to surface missle (as in, not requiring jets to deliver it. But it'd depend on situation)

How would you know if I am hindu or christian or muslim or pastafarian or something else? Keep religion out of it please.

Why is India sometimes called hindustan? Is it called muslimstan? Pastafarianstan?

And on what basis do you say that both nations have bad capability? As I pointed out, both nations have th capability to hit their respective threats.

Here, let me help you with the reading a bit, shall I? Read what I said below, which you failed to read.

"In short, Pakistan and China aren't the only enemies forever."

"Imagine if you nuke the hell out of Pakistan, US wouldnlt be scared to nuke the hell out of India (just an example), because India can't touch US. But if India had nukes that could reach US, then US wouldn't attack India and use embargo etc instead."

As I pointed out earlier, India is working on full fledged ICBMs. By the time that we might have US as our enemy, we will have ICBMs capable of hitting them. Increasing the range of missiles is not the most difficult part - after all, we launch space vehicles. As I said, our immediate priority is ensuring a nuclear triad. But work on long ranged ICBMs is going on as well. (Agni-6, Surya.)

And as I pointed out, both nations need to have better capabilities in delivering the weapon. If we both agree on same point, why did you feel the need to quote my comment? Saw the Pakistani flag and couldn't swallow? jokes

These 20 extra nukes or whatever don't come free of cost. That money can well be spent on getting better capabilities. For example, Israel has 80 nukes. It needs 80 because many muslim countries hate it. Last time I checked, muslims countries are far bigger than Pakistan or India, even combined. Yet, it has 80 weapons. Why? It won't be targetting empty desert or low profile cities. It'd be targetting major cities. And it belives in its weapon. No excuse "Oh my aircraft got shot down (speaking of aircraft, it really needs an aircraft to deliver weapon due to vast land of muslim countries)" or "command and control wasn't functioning"

No offense. We're both on same topic, that capabilities are required. I just give it higher priority than you. I don't believe in aircraft being shot down (when you can have ICBM) or command and control is having difficulties. These are sensitive weapons and you don't want them blowing up within your own country.

 

[gslv mk3]

you invest and make your missles better, faster and whatnot. Because it is not logical to send 10 missles to lahore because not all of them will reach.

explain ?

Why is India sometimes called hindustan?

both nations need to have better capabilities in delivering the weapon.

We have got capable systems for deterring China & Pakistan

 

[farhan_9909]

Could be because india even today has only one operational plutonium production reactor while 4th khushab series reactor is complted on Pakistan side

 

[gslv mk3]

Could be because india even today has only one operational plutonium production reactor while 4th khushab series reactor is complted on Pakistan side

When did Pakistan had plutonium based nukes ?

 

[farhan_9909]

When did Pakistan had plutonium based nukes ?

Really?All the Pakistani nukes today are plutonium based.Infact the estimation today is based off plutonium based only.

 

[WishLivePak]

explain ?

Explain? Explain what? I wrote two different things there.

We have got capable systems for deterring China & Pakistan

And if you were wise enough to read my post, instead of cherry pick your favorite line, you'd know what I was saying. So dear, Indian friend, read below what I said.

"Imagine if you nuke the hell out of Pakistan, US wouldn't be scared to nuke the hell out of India (just an example), because India can't touch US. But if India had nukes that could reach US, then US wouldn't attack India and use embargo etc instead"

and

"In short, Pakistan and China aren't the only enemies forever."

Are you going to sit in your pajamas all your life thinking you've capable system for deterring China and Pakistan? The world outside the two countries doesn't exist?? Yes, the pictures speaks the sort of brain you've And one of your fellow Indian said, there could be desruption of delivering the nukes. This means you do not have a "capable" system. You're relying on "spray'n'pray." Shoot 100 missles at Pakistan and hope some will reach.

News at 10, an Indian discovered that there live people beyond China and Pakistan, that could threaten India.

We have got capable systems for deterring China & Pakistan

 

[farhan_9909]

The First Pakistani Khushab series reactor with capacity of upto 14kg of weapon grade plutonium went operational in 1996.Today we have 4 of them today.

 

[farhan_9909]

Institute for Science and International Security › ISIS Reports › Pakistan › Pakistan Doubling Rate of Making Nuclear Weapons: Time for Pakistan to Reverse Course

Construction of Pakistan’s fourth plutonium production reactor at Khushab proceeds quickly; when finished, the three new Khushab reactors will allow Pakistan to double its annual output of nuclear weapons. The United States should condition a fraction of its military aid on Pakistan halting production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons

Excessive Stocks of Plutonium
Pakistan’s construction of these new reactors at the Khushab site will result in a dramatic increase in its plutonium production capability. Combined, the three new reactors will be able to produce enough plutonium for over 12 nuclear weapons per year, depending on the reactors’ size and operating efficiencies. 1 This compares with Pakistan’s current estimated production of enough weapon-grade uranium and plutonium for about 7-14 weapons per year. 2 These three new reactors will roughly double Pakistan’s annual ability to build nuclear weapons to about 19-26 nuclear weapons per year.

Pakistan appears to want the plutonium to improve the quality of its nuclear arsenal and build a new generation of lighter, more powerful weapons. Plutonium-based weapons can have more explosive yield in smaller, lighter packages than weapons based on weapon-grade uranium. Pakistan appears to want warheads small enough to fit on cruise missiles it is currently developing. It also may want larger yield (50-100 kiloton) fission weapons that can cause far more damage to Indian cities than its current relatively low-yield weapons. In addition, plutonium-based fission weapons could enable Pakistan to build deliverable thermonuclear weapons (i.e., hydrogen bombs). Thus, the recent activity at Khushab should be viewed as further evidence of an accelerated nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan.

In total, through 2010, Pakistan has produced enough weapon-grade uranium and plutonium for roughly 100-170 nuclear weapons. Based on available information, the number of deployed weapons is probably less. Assuming that about 30 percent of its stock of weapon-grade uranium and plutonium is located in its weapons production pipeline, stored, or otherwise unused in weapons, Pakistan has an estimated total of 70-120 nuclear weapons. It can currently add to that stock at the rate of about 7-14 warheads per year and that value will go up to 19-26 warheads per year when all four Khushab reactors are operational.

@gslv mk3

 

[gslv mk3]

Explain? Explain what? I wrote two different things there.

All I could assume from your post is you guys have some sort of BMD (?)

Yes, the pictures speaks the sort of brain you've

What ?

And one of your fellow Indian said, there could be desruption of delivering the nukes. This means you do not have a "capable" system.

No one said the present system is unreliable.Agni V & K 4 SLBM are enough for for much of threads.And work on the next ICBM is underway.

 

[Jackdaws]

The likes of South Africa and Argentina gave up their nukes voluntarily. India, Pak and China should follow their lead for a nuclear free Asia. North Korea is a fruitcake - they will do as they please but perhaps the Chinese can give them the nudge to give up their nukes. There is no pride in having weapons which can destroy so much life.

 

[acetophenol]

The First Pakistani Khushab series reactor with capacity of upto 14kg of weapon grade plutonium went operational in 1996.Today we have 4 of them today.

Please enlighten me if I am missing something,but nukes can be made from Uranium too,na?

 

[farhan_9909]

Please enlighten me if I am missing something,but nukes can be made from Uranium too,na?

The other member claimed that Pakistan doesn't has any plotunium based nukes while today the western analyt estimates are only for plutonium based warheads of Pakistan

 

[WishLivePak]

All I could assume from your post is you guys have some sort of BMD (?)

You're still not making sense. Where did you assume Pakistan has BMD? Here is what I wrote "you invest and make your missles better, faster and whatnot. Because it is not logical to send 10 missles to lahore because not all of them will reach."
So I have no idea what you're speaking about. To help you understand, I'll repeat. Pakistan AND India, both need to invest and make their missles better than to keep making more warheads.

What ?

Children post that image. Now do you understand what I meant with the "sort of brain" comment?

No one said the present system is unreliable.Agni V & K 4 SLBM are enough for for much of threads.And work on the next ICBM is underway.

Let me quote your fellow Indian, because after all, you saw I have Pakistani flag on my profile and I'm some sort of anti-Indian.

"Having 100 nukes does not mean that every single one of them can be delivered. A good portion of them may be destroyed in a first strike, a big number may be destroyed in the process of delivery (shooting down of aircrafts or even missiles), some may be undeployable because of disruption of command and control. That is why a certain number is needed for effective deterrence."

By janon. Disruption of command and control is big one.

And: "No one said the present system is unreliable."

Here is what I said, which you quoted, and failed to read and understand. I didn't say you've unreliable system. But since you brought it up, and as your countryman said "disruption of command and control," to an extent, you've unreliable system. I'll quote, to an "extent."

"This means you do not have a "capable" system."

Unreliable and not capable are two different things. Let me write out defination for you.

Incapable: unable to do or achieve (something).
Unreliable: not able to be relied upon.

 

[Ashutosh Lokhande]

i think india shud change its nuclear doctrine to FU and finish of pakistan from the world map in the first strike . NFU is BS.

 

[WishLivePak]

i think india shud change its nuclear doctrine to FU and finish of pakistan from the world map in the first strike . NFU is BS.

Yes please, can India please attack Pakistan tomorrow and kill 200 million? Because Ashutosh on the internet said so.