• Sunday, December 15, 2019

Pakistans nuclear arsenal comparable to Indias

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by Neo, Aug 26, 2006.

  1. niaz

    niaz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    4,720
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +179 / 9,556 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I have two problems with the use of tactical nuclear weapons

    a. Pakistan hasn't got lot of depth. Affect of tactical nuclear weapons will not be limited to Indian forces. Residual radition will make Pakistan land unusable for generations.

    b. There is every likelihood that Indian response will not be limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons only. Thay are likely to bomb us with strategic nuclear weapons as well as tactical weapons in response.

    Based on the above in my opinion, the use of nuclear weapons; tactical or strategic must be absolutely the do or die option. Thus we must modernize our non nuclear aresenal to delay the excercise of nuclear option as much as possible.
     
  2. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    a. Of course there will be radiation, however Indian troops in Pak. soil over which the weapons will be dropped will feel much more than radiation. You are overstating the effects, people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There will be higher incidence of cancer, but it is preferable to be independant and have higher cancer rates than to be annexed by another nation.

    b. It will be limited to tactical weapons because the use of strategic weapons would invite full retaliation. For India to lose 50,000 troops isnt likely to lead them to use strategic weapons. After all they have military manpower of a million on the border region.
     
  3. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    And if they decide to accept the casualties and push on? You've just wasted a nuke.

    The threshold has already been crossed. You nuked them.

    Pakistan and India can't destroy each other's military PERIOD. You don't have the C4ISR, the accuracy, nor the nukes. ALL your nukes are city busters.

    1) ALL CHINA'S NUKES ARE STRATEGIC WEAPONS.
    2) If tac nukes are meant to be used, then why am I replying to you? That is just pure hogwash.
    3) YOU CANNOT THREATEN A NUKE AND EXPECT TO GET CLEAN AWAY! You nuke me. I nuke you. It's as simple as that.
     
  4. Averroes

    Averroes FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    455
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    Is nuclear war actually possible between Pakistan and India? I hope they're simply for bluffs, and if any war would break they would stick to their regular non nuclear arsenal.
     
  5. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    Imho...all it takes is a few idiots and we both have quite a few of them.
    As far as I remember, during Cold War US and The Sovjet Union came close to war atleast three times. :what1:
     
  6. Averroes

    Averroes FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    455
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    Of those two, Russia has been neutralising their nukes at a much higher pace than US, wonder why the us is stalling with their dismantling and keeping at a 5,000 barrier. I hope the US keeps its title of the only country to go down in history as having nuked another nation.

    Hopefully in the future Pak and Ind can come to an agreement and both delete its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
    Mod: Namecalling is prohibited!
     
  7. TexasJohn

    TexasJohn SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,288
    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 559 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    I think the only reason India went nuclear was not for Pakistan, but as a deterence from China. As long as China has nukes "set aside" for India, I don't see India giving it up either!
     
  8. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Real comfort to the Chechens, Srebrenicia, Rwanda, and Dufar. The AK-47 has killed more people than those nukes did. Hell, the machatee had killed more people than those nukes did.
     
  9. Averroes

    Averroes FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    455
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    True, and that was the message of the movie Lord of War - what weapons of mass destruction really are. But these deaths r limited to areas and time and involve different conflicts, one nuke is equivalent to all that, as the previous a-bomb used by us is nothing compared to their new ones.
     
  10. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    With such a mentality, why not ban all rifles, artillery and aircraft and go back to the days of knives? Its because there is a limited military budget within which the greatest capability must be acquired.
     
  11. Averroes

    Averroes FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    455
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    That would be amazing, if we could go back to bow and arrows and swords. After countries nukes each other, we'll be there.
     
  12. Jay_

    Jay_ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 4 / -0
    No, it depends on who nukes who. Else, the radio active dust would take a while to settle.
     
  13. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Going back to the days of swords is perfectably acceptable after a nuclear exchange, but embracing it before while other nations do not is inviting destruction as Iraq has found out. Nuclear weapons have destroyed only two cities and only then because one side had it while the other did not. Since the development of nuclear weapons, thousands of villages, hundreds of towns and dozens of cities have been destroyed by that which is non-nuclear.

    A world without war is ideal, a world with war mandates that one possesses nuclear weapons and be prepared to use it unless one does indeed which to be destroyed as non-nuclear Iraq.

    Before preaching, why not equip Indian troops with bows and arrows before railing against nuclear weapons.
     
  14. salman77

    salman77 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Ratings:
    +3 / 435 / -0
    Is it true that Bush's decision of Civilian nuclear deal with India was to punish Pakistan for leaking nuclear tech to Iran, North Korea etc???
     
  15. john_holmes

    john_holmes FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Salman,

    The nuke deal is a guarantee against future Chinese aggressive ideas.

    Pakistan is/was/never will be in the picture.