What's new

Pakistans nuclear arsenal comparable to Indias

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,054
206
10,882
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.
 

sigatoka

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 29, 2005
1,013
0
29
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.
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.
 

Officer of Engineers

FULL MEMBER
Apr 29, 2006
693
0
20
1. If India made a limited break in Punjab or Sindh, attacking Indian airfields, assembly areas, and div and corps level HQs would be an unacceptable escalation. Hitting Indian troops within Pak. territory would not.
And if they decide to accept the casualties and push on? You've just wasted a nuke.

2. 4. They could, however Pak. strategic nuclear weapons will be used (hitting Indian cities) if 70% of Pak. ground forces are destroyed. The Indians would realise this and would therefore not use tactical nuclear weapons on Pak. ground forces within Pak. because it would force the threshold to be crossed too quickly.
The threshold has already been crossed. You nuked them.

3. That doesnt make sense, how do they prevent decapitation? Isnt complete utter destruction the use of strategic weapons on cities? Remeber Pak. nor India have enough weapons right now to destroy the others military AND cities at the same time.
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.

5. Tactical nuclear weapons are not for threatening only (like strategic weapons are), they are meant to be used. If Indian troops make significant breaks in LOC, tactical nuclear weapons can be used to remove them. Also China dedicates the vast majority of its nuclear weapons to tactical role while Russia retains the capability to quickly produce hundreds of tactical weapons.
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.
 

Averroes

FULL MEMBER
Jul 3, 2006
455
0
18
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.
 

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Nov 1, 2005
18
0
3,871
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:
 

Averroes

FULL MEMBER
Jul 3, 2006
455
0
18
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!
 

TexasJohn

SENIOR MEMBER
May 13, 2006
1,412
0
666
Country
United States
Location
United States
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 Great Satan 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.
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!
 

Officer of Engineers

FULL MEMBER
Apr 29, 2006
693
0
20
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.
From the Moscow Treaty
Article I

Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the President of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads.
From Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006 | thebulletin.org:

More than 128,000 nuclear warheads have been built since 1945, according to our calculations, and all but close to 3 percent were built by the United States (about 55 percent) and the Soviet Union/Russia (about 43 percent). Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have moved an increasing percentage of their warheads from operational status to various reserve, inactive, or contingency categories, as arms control agreements traditionally have not required the destruction of warheads. For example, the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (the "Moscow Treaty") contains no verification provisions and ignores nonoperational and nonstrategic warheads altogether. With any number of warheads in indeterminate status, nuclear stockpiles are becoming more opaque and difficult to describe with precision. It's a situation that will only worsen after 2009 if the United States and Russia do not extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I, which requires biannual reporting on the status of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and bombers.

United States. The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000 stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive. Details from an Energy Department 2004 stockpile plan indicate that some 4,000 warheads will eventually be retired, returned to Energy's custody, and disassembled at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, though that task could take many years to accomplish. Refurbishments and upgrades to existing warheads will take priority over disassembly in terms of man-hours for the foreseeable future.

Of the more than 70,000 warheads produced by the United States since 1945, more than 60,000 have been disassembled by mid-2006. More than 13,000 of these warheads have been taken apart since 1990, but Energy retains more than 12,000 intact plutonium pits from dismantled warheads and stores them at Pantex.

Russia. Moscow has released very little information about the size of its stockpile, and its future plans are not known with a great deal of certainty. We estimate that since 1949 the Soviet Union/Russia produced some 55,000 nuclear warheads and that about 30,000 warheads existed in 1991 at the end of the Cold War. A few statements from Russian officials provide an occasional benchmark to help roughly calculate stockpile size and trends. But these statements typically lack detail, and the referenced dates are often ambiguous. In 1993, Victor Mikhailov, then minister of atomic energy, revealed that in 1986 the Soviet Union had 45,000 warheads in its stockpile. A decade later, Mikhailov said that nearly half of these warheads had been dismantled. [1]

The Defense Department and the CIA estimated that Russia dismantled slightly more than 1,000 warheads per year during the 1990s, though how firm those estimates were is unknown. Of the 16,000 intact warheads we estimate to be in Russia's possession today, around 5,830 are considered operational. Because Russia has removed warheads from its deployed and operational forces faster than it could dismantle them, there is a backlog of warheads awaiting dismantlement. The Moscow Treaty limits Russia's "operationally deployed strategic warheads" to no more than 2,200 by 2012, but its arsenal could shrink below this limit. Russia's production of new systems has been slow, and it is uncertain whether it can maintain such a large number of warheads because of limited resources and funding. Russia had previously pressed for a limit of 1,500 operational strategic warheads as part of the treaty, but the United States rejected this limit.
I hope the Great Satan keeps its title of the only country to go down in history as having nuked another nation.
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.
 

Averroes

FULL MEMBER
Jul 3, 2006
455
0
18
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.
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.
 

sigatoka

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 29, 2005
1,013
0
29
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:
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.
 

Averroes

FULL MEMBER
Jul 3, 2006
455
0
18
That would be amazing, if we could go back to bow and arrows and swords. After countries nukes each other, we'll be there.
 

sigatoka

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 29, 2005
1,013
0
29
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.
 

salman77

FULL MEMBER
Dec 20, 2006
348
3
460
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???
 

john_holmes

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Dec 23, 2006
82
0
Salman,

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

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

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


Top Bottom