Why do some Pakistanis think they need ICBM?

[war&peace]

That is a terrible example to give. The vietnam war was the US attempt to provide conventional assistance in a civil war with massive bureaucratic holds on objectives and a military that was ill prepared to fight an insurgency. Moreover, the Vietnam war was a conflict between two powers fighting two different strategies. Had the US used its conventional capabilities with no holds barred in the early days of the war; it would have rolled all the way to Hanoi.

There is nothing Pakistan can do with Nukes that would threaten the US except its immediate interests; which also means the end of Pakistan. Please try to understand that despite your bravado; not too many people would like to die in a ball of flame and have their children burnt from radiation and dying a horrible death. Those are emotions of young men without an understanding of loss.

For Pakistan to be attacked by the US, one or more of the following have to be true
1. The nuclear security is compromised, either by radicals in the military or by a takeover by extremists in the country.
2. Pakistan openly supports an all out assault on the US military in Afghanistan.
3. A massive terror attack takes place which has its origins in Pakistan, and Pakistan refuses to compromise.

There are very little chances of other scenarios in which both the US and Pakistan would be forced into conflict. There may be cold periods of relationships but as such besides diplomatic standoffs there will be no conflict.

As for the GSLV, there is no issue in having one besides that we get our launches done via China and so far have little or nothing to show for sensory satellite programs or otherwise.

Well sir, you have your opinion and I respect that but one thing that is clear ICBM is not against USA, Pakistan can have it just to enhance its capabilities both in terms of technological and political prowess. I really don't know why people start pitching against USA... as you already defined the three point criteria, possessing an ICBM meets none of them. Pak army is well disciplined army and it has already taken care of any such elements especially under Gen. Raheel's leadership. I reiterate that possessing an ICBM does not mount to a war automatically with any country. It is just there in the arsenal for deterrence purposes. As far as, any power attacking Pakistan, there are other powers that will be helping Pakistan; if they could it for Vietnam, they have more reasons to support Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Well sir, you have your opinion and I respect that but one thing that is clear ICBM is not against USA, Pakistan can have it just to enhance its capabilities both in terms of technological and political prowess. I really don't know why people start pitching against USA... as you already defined the three point criteria, possessing an ICBM meets none of them. Pak army is well disciplined army and it has already taken care of any such elements especially under Gen. Raheel's leadership. I reiterate that possessing an ICBM does not mount to a war automatically with any country. It is just there in the arsenal for deterrence purposes. As far as, any power attacking Pakistan, there are other powers that will be helping Pakistan; if they could it for Vietnam, they have more reasons to support Pakistan.

Again, you are repeating a mantra that you have not proven to be connected to any of the purposes you state. A country does not need an ICBM to maintain deterrence and sovereignty; the Soviet Union had many of these and collapsed in a total mess. The rest of your post is tangential and has no relevance to the foolish idea for an ICBM.

 

[war&peace]

Again, you are repeating a mantra that you have not proven to be connected to any of the purposes you state. A country does not need an ICBM to maintain deterrence and sovereignty; the Soviet Union had many of these and collapsed in a total mess. The rest of your post is tangential and has no relevance to the foolish idea for an ICBM.

On this point, I agree with you totally. An economic power with proportionate military power is a power to reckon with. A military with fragile economy has the potential to collapse under its own weight.

 

[The SC]

Road-mobiles, as the name indicates, are long-distance nuclear missiles mounted on huge trucks. The advantage to these roving city-killers is that they’re hard to find, and make first-strike planning pretty tough. Fixed-place ICBMs, buried in silos, never move. Since they’re the equivalent of potted plants (or sitting ducks?) you can plan strikes against them weeks, months, even years in advance, which increases their vulnerability. Road-mRoad-mobiles also make sense for a large land power like Russia, which has most of its missiles inside its borders. The United States, unsurprisingly for a maritime power, has most of its megatonnage roaming around under the world’s oceans. (The entire UK deterrent is completely submarine-based.) While it’s a little harder to drive missiles around on land — where satellites can see them, and where, you know, people live — it’s the best approximation to the sea-based deterrent.Road-mobiles, by contrast, might never be in the same place they were the week before. (Think of them as land-based submarines.)...

There are a few reasons that mobile missiles make sense. First, countries with a small strategic deterrent with very few ICBMs, like China or a new power just getting into the game —yes, I mean North Korea — will want to have every edge in protecting its deterrent from a surprise attack. Not surprisingly, the idea of digging a hole and putting a missile in it, where the enemy can take pictures of it all day and program its position to the centimeter into its own attack force (or into a missile defense grid, if one is ever built) isn’t very appealing.

Road-mobiles also make sense for a large land power like Russia, which has most of its missiles inside its borders. The United States, unsurprisingly for a maritime power, has most of its megatonnage roaming around under the world’s oceans. (The entire UK deterrent is completely submarine-based.) While it’s a little harder to drive missiles around on land — where satellites can see them, and where, you know, people live — it’s the best approximation to the sea-based deterrent.

http://tomnichols.net/blog/2012/11/14/russia-road-mobile-icbms/

They present an advantage when mobile..

 

[Abingdonboy]

Why do some Pakistanis think they need ICBM?

Do they really have any enemy in any other continent?

When was this idea first stated in public domain? Just who suggested this unnecessary thing?

Because India has it and Pakistan is India's equal in every way

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Because India has it and Pakistan is India's equal in every way

Do you want a banana now..

Reward for you monkey boy.

 

[RAMPAGE]

foolish idea for an ICBM.

Oscar sahab, You didn't reply to my last comment.

Do you think that those SSBNs (or their derivatives/replacement) won't come with ICBMs? You're going to limit your SSBN operations to the Arabian sea?

 

[Pindi Boy]

Because India has it and Pakistan is India's equal in every way

and why do india has??
because their big daddy China has???

 

[SQ8]

Oscar sahab, You didn't reply to my last comment.

Do you think that those SSBNs (or their derivatives/replacement) won't come with ICBMs? You're going to limit your SSBN operations to the Arabian sea?

That is correct. Our SSBN's will be focused with MRBMs.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

We don't need ICBMs.

 

[Blue Marlin]

That is correct. Our SSBN's will be focused with MRBMs.

so it would be a shaheen 2 slbm?
but it would take 15+ years. why bring up such a thing so early? you dot have a nuclear sub let alone a slcm an slbm? forget it. an abm's is whats needed. a land based icbm is risky as pakistan is not as large as india to have such missiles. but some silos in the balochistan desert may be possible if desprate

 

[MastanKhan]

People forget that when threatened US very quickly get's rid of pesky moral compunctions and it's entire societal construct undergoes a fantastically fast metamorphosis from responsible to glutton for destruction. West unlike us Indians and Pakistanis define a objective and then give it all to achieve no matter how many 1000s die. No half measures like us where we posture and prod.

It is quite interesting really - the level of response from west where they level offending countries to dust at will in contrast to pussyfooting by India and Pakistan. You expect when 1.5 billion fight there to be atleast 100,000 deaths but somehow the casualty figures in our wars is way less despite this being a fight b/w relative equals with advanced tech, huge resources and as a bonus have historic hatred b.w the two unlike US rolling over likes of Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan

Hi,

The U S is the modern day Genghis Khan----.

 

[PDF]

We do not need ICBM which is land based. But we certainly needs SLBM. Just like France and UK...

 

[RAMPAGE]

That is correct. Our SSBN's will be focused with MRBMs.

Define MRBM? It is quite obvious that their range will be a lot more than the S3 because you don't want to restrict their area of operation to the Arabian Sea. Depending on their location, The'll be able to hit many far away countries.

 

[TMA]

Did the zionists tell you that

Reading in between the lines will tell you this.

Did the zionists tell you that

http://www.imranhosein.org/articles/islam-and-politics/314-lessons-from-natos-attack-on-libya.html

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=652