What's new

Pakistan has 90 Nuclear Warheads (2009) according to UK media

mohit

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 26, 2010
75
0
33
so you sayin pakistan cannot manage a "single" strike inside india, what, are you smokin weed all this long??
Read before you speak... so you think pakistan can strike 90 times ? I guess Its clear who is smoking weed here :rofl:
 

AZAAD

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 6, 2009
11
0
7
The disarmament treaty currently being negotiated between the US and Russia applies to deployed strategic warheads, along with their delivery systems, but that leaves out most of the weapons both countries are sitting on.


Nuclear weapons: how many are there in 2009 and who has them?


Russia...................... 12,987
US............................ 9,552
France......................... 300
Israel............................ 200
UK............................... 192
China........................... 400
Pakistan.............. 90
India............................. 75
North Korea...................... 2


Feel the Nuclear Power: Pakistan's capabilities! :)

:pakistan:
I really doubt the figures. As per the article China has 176 nukes (and not 400 as shown by you) while israel has 200. Doesnt make sense to me.
 

ameer219

FULL MEMBER
Jan 30, 2010
966
3
962
Country
Pakistan
Location
Singapore
Will "1" Shaheen be good to wipe entire country? or 2 ? or 3? Its not about the "reach" its "HOW MANY" you can fire... on the other hand.. 1 Agni or 2 Agni is more than enough for 80% of your cities.

Damn it.. look what you have done... you are making me think like you now.. It is destruction that you can all think of and feel good about... pakistan is not even close economically to India.. instead of competing on that front.. lets destroy the damn country so we can all live in poverty and share miserable existence together... very typical...

O god choice of screen name BTW... :azn:
Sir, with all due respect.

Its true, Pakistan will definitely be gone if India retaliates, but Pakistan's doctrine, is to bring India down with it, not to survive a nuclear conflict.

And what makes you think our missiles are going to fire only at some villages? Definitely, we will attack places, such as economic hubs, or maybe some nuclear installations, to reduce your second strike capability.

Keeping patriotism aside, you would know that both of these country won't be able to survive a nuclear war.
 

TOPGUN

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Jun 6, 2006
8,463
1
7,998
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Once again another thread in to a flame plzz to our indian friends keep the flames to your self and don't get your ego twisted in here or else where. One thing i might say exercising peace for once won't hurt... don't ever think of stupid wet dreams that india will wipe of Pakistan of the planet plzz come back to reality and wake the hell up never gona happen GOD forgive if there ever was a nuk war between so many will die and both will be wiped of the map.... and the ones talking crap as always will forsure find a way out of there country to safeground. Plzz stop this bs here hating and all think matture & act with knowledge and practice peace its a good thing so plzz no more wet dreams ok you will end up making a mess on your beds ... jerks.. :angry:
 
Last edited:

mohit

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 26, 2010
75
0
33
Sir, with all due respect.

Its true, Pakistan will definitely be gone if India retaliates, but Pakistan's doctrine, is to bring India down with it, not to survive a nuclear conflict.

And what makes you think our missiles are going to fire only at some villages? Definitely, we will attack places, such as economic hubs, or maybe some nuclear installations, to reduce your second strike capability.

Keeping patriotism aside, you would know that both of these country won't be able to survive a nuclear war.
Thanks for your remarks. And you do sound like a reasonable voice here. I agree with you and urge you to read my original post. I too was referring to peaceful existence and prosperity in the region. But some comments made by a fellow netizen earlier made me throw my better judgement aside. O well... we live and learn.:toast_sign:
 

AZADPAKISTAN2009

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2009
32,880
64
34,467
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
Nothing major I think we should focus on our economy and curbing terrorism and trying to resolve issue of Kashmir with India ASAP

Nuclear is bad for countries , we need energy not weapons
 

TechLahore

FULL MEMBER
Nov 15, 2009
1,741
0
3,060
There is a good reason why entire world views pakistani nuclear arsenal differently.... because you seem too anxious to use it. With power comes responsibility. Have any other "nuclear armed" country flaunted the idea of using nuclear weapons in an event of conflict? While India is committed to no first use policy the same is not true for pakistan.
You are completely incorrect in your characterization and the contrast you are attempting to sketch. The US used their nukes. Israel put nukes in the air during the Arab Israeli conflict and continues to maintain extensive covert capabilities. Israelis have written and spoken about "nuking" Arab capitals if Israel were close to losing a war. Russia and the US have had silos on alert with pre-programmed coordinates of each other's cities for decades. China has had the same viz the US. The US has in turn deployed nuclear weapons in international waters. So any media nonsense about Pakistan's arsenal is exactly that, nonsense.

And the proliferation record of any of these countries is not something to be proud of either. How did South Africa get nukes? Via israel. How did Israel get nukes? Via the US... and so it goes. They are quick to blame AQ Khan for sharing "nuclear secrets" with other states, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Pakistan and India were both able to obtain nuclear and related technology under cover from numerous countries in the west. When we obtain technology, we are at fault, not the provider. And when we are accused of delivering technology, once again, we are at fault. Wonderful way to play the game.

The safety record of most nuclear nations is crap also. It is public information that just a couple of years ago nukes were "mistakenly" flown across the continental US on USAF aircraft. How many checks and balances could there be if this sort of nonsense happens and makes it to the press? Who's to say it hasn't happened 50 times earlier and gone unreported?

Just remember.. in case when the tragedy strikes and Pakistan decides to exercise its nuke option, it may manage to slide a couple of strikes in India (causing wide destruction).. but in retaliation a couple of nuclear strikes back will wipe entire pakistan off the face of earth (given the size of the country)..
You are wrong again. The use of one or two nukes is not consistent with a first-strike strategy. The first-strike will be massive. If you are under the delusion that India will survive all-out nuclear war with Pakistan, you need to think again. Both countries will be destroyed completely.

So please think responsibly. Also, history notes that all previous conflicts were started by pakistan, not India.
Wrong again. Siachen? Forced accession of Kashmir in '48? Arming and funding of Mukti Bahini with RAW support in '71? Runn of Kutch? Repeated violations of Pakistani airspace in the late 50s causing the eventual shooting-down of an IAF Canberra? Crossing the international border in '65? (Please don't give me the Operation Gibraltar spiel... India had been playing similar games in the Runn of Kutch for years and both countries kept operations limited to the disputed area. The decision to attack Pakistan across the international border in 1965, thus starting the war, was India's)

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I expect you to be aware that there are legitimate differences of opinion. From where we stand India's attitude and intent viz Pakistan since 1947 appears completely malevolent. Why, before any conflict between the two countries, were the partitioned resources of United India not given to us? That was one of the first indications that India intended to pursue an acrimonious relationship with Pakistan.
 

ek_indian

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 9, 2009
1,514
0
791
One thing really amused me. How can some newspaper got the exact amount of nuclear weapons where every inteliigence agency can not smell it.

Also China's figure is given incorrect in first post. To me, 176 makes more realistic. I am also not sure about Israel and NK data.

We understand Pakistan has enough warheads to destroy SA region, not only India. But why and how India can have smaller number of warheads by any logic. This is nothing to do with Pakistan's capability. It is more about resources. Furthermore I can't and will not trust these data because of their secrecy.
 

karan.1970

BANNED
Jan 3, 2010
14,781
-20
20,763
Country
India
Location
India
The disarmament treaty currently being negotiated between the US and Russia applies to deployed strategic warheads, along with their delivery systems, but that leaves out most of the weapons both countries are sitting on.


Nuclear weapons: how many are there in 2009 and who has them?


Russia...................... 12,987
US............................ 9,552
France......................... 300
Israel............................ 200
UK............................... 192
China........................... 400
Pakistan.............. 90
India............................. 75
North Korea...................... 2


Feel the Nuclear Power: Pakistan's capabilities! :)

:pakistan:
Dude.. Really like your affinity for China.. Thats why you copied the 400 number for it (from 2000 data ) instead of the 176 number which is a 2009 number like you have copied for rest of the countries.. :rofl:

You should have realized that the list was in a sorted order...:rofl:
 

Trichy

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2010
1,505
-1
543
Country
India
Location
India
i have a doubt in it why they add china all the time??? what would if we add Russia in calculations???
 

Star Trek

BANNED

New Recruit

Mar 7, 2010
78
0
32
Does it matter wheather a country has 75 nukes or 90 nukes.
For any country 30-40 nukes should be more than enough to deter their adversaries.
Its just plain waste of money spending on a large arsenal of nukes.
 

Bingo!

BANNED
Mar 22, 2010
257
0
125
i guess we can ask for some 5000 nuclear warheads from russia in the event of a war.. just ask them whether they take cash or cheque?:D:D
 

sergente rehan

FULL MEMBER
Mar 19, 2008
547
0
219
i have a doubt in it why they add china all the time??? what would if we add Russia in calculations???
First of all China is our trusted friend and second thing the list contains all the countries which have nuclear arsenal...did you see only China and Pakistan in that list?! What make you think that we are calculating China? if you want to add Russia do it.....
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom