What's new

Ababeel Missile Tested

I'm not sure if I have ever seen a design like this anywhere else? What I do know is that other missiles are manufactured without fins, have multiple rocket engines, and are more aerodynamically streamlined without the abrupt top section of Ababeel. I also know that Pakistan is far behind other countries like India or even North Korea in missile and rocket technology.
As long as it gets the job done and deterrence is in place, we will skip the cat walk.
Pakistan is no rogue state like the two you mentioned that . one is always involved in sabre rattling while the other has no control on who presses the red button , either they end up firing dud missiles into neighbouring country or end up shooting themselves in the foot. But hey as long as they are pleasing to your eyes, you are the expert in the field.
 
.
The bold points were emphasizing a rebuttal to your points. But if you want to the answer as to why Pakistan needs an ICBM, you can answer this, what defines a nuclear power in the current era? What is the common denominator that all nuclear powers have today that Pakistan does not have?

As for threatening the world, must I really remind you that foreign powers flew choppers near your large bases to kill people on your territory without your permission? Did foreign powers not kill your soldiers, the same soldiers fighting against their own citizens to protect that very same foreign power? Did foreign powers not threaten to take over your nuclear weapons? Did foreign powers other than India not assassinate people on your soil? Did foreign powers not conduct drone strikes killing your citizens? Or are these offenses acceptable to you? If so why?

So you want Pakistan to advise them? In what? Do you want Pakistan to proliferate nuclear technology to other countries? Did you know that the establishment's stupid decision to transfer nuclear weapons technology to so-called brotherly nations like Iran or pariah like North Korea damaged its reputation far more than an ICBM could have? Pakistanis like to help others at their own expense in exchange for nothing or worse.

Agree with you here. I never said Pakistan should declare that its working on an ICBM or anything for that matter. Its good to keep the mouth shut, but work relentlessly to ensure the country is secure from all threats, not just India.
you can answer this, what defines a nuclear power in the current era? What is the common denominator that all nuclear powers have today that Pakistan does not have?
The common denominator across all nuclear powers is a deterrence based on perceived threats. Pakistan's focus thus far has been towards its near-most existentialist threat which is India.

The other countries are either global powers that have a requirement to project power/force and as such have a deterrence capability that is of the intercontinental level. Israel has enemies near and far and if one reads into the speculative Samson Option, may have a need to deter even EU. This is not to say Pakistan will never have a need for ICBM, it is just that at this point in time, we don't have direct threats to us from beyond the immediate neighborhood.

As for threatening the world, must I really remind you that foreign powers flew choppers near your large bases to kill people on your territory without your permission? Did foreign powers not kill your soldiers, the same soldiers fighting against their own citizens to protect that very same foreign power? Did foreign powers not threaten to take over your nuclear weapons? Did foreign powers other than India not assassinate people on your soil? Did foreign powers not conduct drone strikes killing your citizens? Or are these offenses acceptable to you? If so why?
So you would have Pakistan respond to the US strikes against our soldiers by unleashing nuclear weapons against them? We did not even need an ICBM for that, Americans were in Afghanistan then. So not sure what this argument has to do with ICBMs. The ones with ICBM have suffered attacks against which their nuclear deterrence is of no value (cases in point Russia v. Ukraine, Israel vs. Hamas, US vs. Taliban / ISIS / AQ etc. etc.) The same goes for Pakistan and the various security situations that develop around us.
So you want Pakistan to advise them? In what? Do you want Pakistan to proliferate nuclear technology to other countries? Did you know that the establishment's stupid decision to transfer nuclear weapons technology to so-called brotherly nations like Iran or pariah like North Korea damaged its reputation far more than an ICBM could have? Pakistanis like to help others at their own expense in exchange for nothing or worse.
When the gloves are off, everything is on the table. If it makes strategic sense for Pakistan to do that, i.e. advise, she will. All of the West proliferated as has Russia and so has China so Pakistan isn't the only exception.

Agree with you here. I never said Pakistan should declare that its working on an ICBM or anything for that matter. Its good to keep the mouth shut, but work relentlessly to ensure the country is secure from all threats, not just India.
This is a technical issue and not policy related. Pakistan has not put technical bars on its program. It has made a conscious policy decision in light of the prevailing geopolitical situation. Nothing with regards to this policy is set in stone. It is subject to change based on changing threat scenarios.
 
.
Ugly and poor aerodynamic design. It looks like they cut the top of Shaheen II and replaced it with larger nose cone.

.
714abqy5llc71.jpg

It just needs to get the job done...
 
. . . . . . .
How many warheads can it carry

I recall it was three last time, has that been improved?

Multiple of these missiles fired on India would be devastating
 
. .
The common denominator across all nuclear powers is a deterrence based on perceived threats. Pakistan's focus thus far has been towards its near-most existentialist threat which is India.
No, the common denominator is having the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead anywhere or at least at intercontinental range. North Korea, Israel, and India all have this capability or are working on it. Note that I'm not even mentioning the five nations of UN Security Council. Pakistan is the only nuclear power that limits the range of weapons out of fear of displeasing foreign powers. But is this so surprising when many of your army personnel move abroad to live and die in the west after retirement?
The other countries are either global powers that have a requirement to project power/force and as such have a deterrence capability that is of the intercontinental level. Israel has enemies near and far and if one reads into the speculative Samson Option, may have a need to deter even EU. This is not to say Pakistan will never have a need for ICBM, it is just that at this point in time, we don't have direct threats to us from beyond the immediate neighborhood.
Israel has enemies outside of the Middle East that it needs to nuke but Pakistan doesn't have threats outside the subcontinent?
So you would have Pakistan respond to the US strikes against our soldiers by unleashing nuclear weapons against them? We did not even need an ICBM for that, Americans were in Afghanistan then. So not sure what this argument has to do with ICBMs. The ones with ICBM have suffered attacks against which their nuclear deterrence is of no value (cases in point Russia v. Ukraine, Israel vs. Hamas, US vs. Taliban / ISIS / AQ etc. etc.) The same goes for Pakistan and the various security situations that develop around us.
No. The US and Russia had deployed troops to foreign lands, with the US being far from home soil and safe from any blowback. Russia invaded Ukraine which is next door and the blowback has reached it. If Pakistan had ICBM that could reach home soil of aggressor nations, then the likelihood of it being attacked would be much less.

Let's take example from North Korea. US does exercises and saber-rattling as North Korea builds missiles. Once it successfully tested its ICBMs and nuclear warheads, you hear silence. The US will not dare to attack North Korea, even though it surrounds it.
When the gloves are off, everything is on the table. If it makes strategic sense for Pakistan to do that, i.e. advise, she will. All of the West proliferated as has Russia and so has China so Pakistan isn't the only exception.
So you advocate a gloves off approach for giving nuclear weapons to others but not strengthening your own arsenal?

The US and Israel would rather have Pakistan, which doesn't explicitly threaten them, develop an ICBM than see it give nukes to Iran which does threaten them.

What is stopping Iran from becoming a bigger threat to Pakistan? They have already sabotaged Gwadar and seek more destabilization.
This is a technical issue and not policy related. Pakistan has not put technical bars on its program. It has made a conscious policy decision in light of the prevailing geopolitical situation. Nothing with regards to this policy is set in stone. It is subject to change based on changing threat scenarios.
 
.
Likewise the tiny fins at the bottom. That's found nowhere on the missile.
The entire section is not visible, some of it is in the dirt and partially crushed from the impact. Anyways the fins seem to be positioned upside town as per the white markings on it which would mean it's bottom up.
1697647916346.png
 
. .
View attachment 963222
It just needs to get the job done...
Damn! Was gonna post this myself!

Anyways i agree with people saying Pakistan does need longer range missiles, but what it really needs is satellite launch capability. ICBM tech can be developed from SLVs and that really is the order of the day for Pakistan. It needs better regional satellite capacity and self reliance.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom