F - 16s needed for counter- terror Ops - Pak tells US

[Shariq786]

Whatever reports we have seen - only point to Pakistan's stockpile increasing at a drastic pace, I have not read about Indian stockpile growing at a "fast pace".


Report: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become the world’s third-biggest - The Washington Post

The report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center concludes that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities because of fear of its archrival, India, also a nuclear power. The report, which will be released Thursday, says Pakistan is far outpacing India in the development of nuclear warheads.

Analysts estimate that Pakistan has about 120 nuclear warheads, while India has about 100.

In the coming years, the report states, Pakistan’s advantage could grow dramatically because it has a large stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to quickly produce low-yield nuclear devices.

India has far larger stockpiles of plutonium, which is needed to produce high-yield warheads, than Pakistan does. But the report says India appears to be using most of its plutonium to produce domestic energy.

Second, does not matter what twisted PoV Pakistan has for increasing its stockpile at a dramatic pace, world believes that yours and Pakistan's reasons and PoV are just stupid.

Use common sense and compare the landmass of INDIA and PAK you'll know ...

100 nukes more than enough for PAK 120 nukes for INDIA is not because INDIA is 5x larger than PAK so if you put it like this in order to be equal to the amount and damage INDIA's 100 nukes could do we need 5x more meaning 100(from INDIA)=500(from PAK) NOW I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN INDIAN LANGUAGE

 

[SamantK]

Use common sense and compare the landmass of INDIA and PAK you'll know ...

100 nukes more than enough for PAK 120 nukes for INDIA is not because INDIA is 5x larger than PAK so if you put it like this in order to be equal to the amount and damage INDIA's 100 nukes could do we need 5x more meaning 100(from INDIA)=500(from PAK) NOW I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN INDIAN LANGUAGE

Wow, your Pakistani language is pretty dumb.

 

[Shariq786]

Wow, your Pakistani language is pretty dumb.

just like you and your reading skills

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Beyond 200 nuclear weapons , the additional warheads are ...quite frankly not needed as most population would already be dead

 

[That Guy]

just like the number of WMDs iraq possessed?? they destroyed a country and then said sorry our intel was wrong.

Contrary to popular opinion, most think tanks actually said that Iraq possessed zero nukes. Even the CIA was iffy at best about Iraqi WMDs. The war happened due to Bush jr's personal vendetta.

 

[SQ8]

Contrary to popular opinion, most think tanks actually said that Iraq possessed zero nukes. Even the CIA was iffy at best about Iraqi WMDs. The war happened due to Bush jr's personal vendetta.

Well there were chemical weapons which have been shoved into the category of WMDs.. Saddam did gas populations he did not like and probably had some lying around just in case, but it was essentlaly Bush Sr and Cheney trying to finish the Job of GW-1.

They had actually hoped that the effects of GW-1 would topple Saddam and kept trying to incite an internal regime change but at the end decided that he had to go the other way.

 

[litman]

Contrary to popular opinion, most think tanks actually said that Iraq possessed zero nukes. Even the CIA was iffy at best about Iraqi WMDs. The war happened due to Bush jr's personal vendetta.

british PM admitted that the reports were wrong and he was just "sorry". don't accept everything as truth which is shown in the media that's what i was trying to convey to you in another thread

 

[LeGenD]

just like the number of WMDs iraq possessed?? they destroyed a country and then said sorry our intel was wrong.

US intelligence sources were aware of the fact that Iraq did not possess a WMD stockpile, certainly not large enough to be perceived as a significant threat.

Bush Jr. just needed an excuse to invade Iraq.

You can learn more from here: Chief US inspector admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles - World Socialist Web Site

 

[litman]

US intelligence sources were aware of the fact that Iraq did not possess a WMD stockpile, certainly not large enough to be perceived as a significant threat.

Bush Jr. just needed an excuse to invade Iraq.

You can learn more from here: Chief US inspector admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles - World Socialist Web Site

the real problem is that they destroyed a country for oil under the umbrella of wmds. yet we love to believe whatever their media says. i particularly remember a dialogue in the movie shooter "ana nicole married for love and wmds were in iraq"

 

[MastanKhan]

Use common sense and compare the landmass of INDIA and PAK you'll know ...

100 nukes more than enough for PAK 120 nukes for INDIA is not because INDIA is 5x larger than PAK so if you put it like this in order to be equal to the amount and damage INDIA's 100 nukes could do we need 5x more meaning 100(from INDIA)=500(from PAK) NOW I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN INDIAN LANGUAGE

Hi,

Youngman---with nuclear weapons it does not work like that----. The use of their force has a multiplier effect that is only unique to the nuc weapons----.

As the number of strikes keep increasing---the multiplier effect would go on increasing---.

Suppose pakistan lobbed 5 weapons on india---the effec would be 100 supposedly---but if 10 are launched the effect could be 1000---and if 15 are launched---the effect could be 2500---5000.

What is happening is that as the numbers of strikes increase---the panic in the community increase enmasse----the chaos takes a destruction of its own kind---and that is what is one of the biggest fear factors---the second fear factor that an average public does not know----is DIARHEA caused by radiation when it gets to you---.

So---the effects of nuc strike do not stop after the explosion of the bomb---they are just begining----.

In my numbers----10-15 is the magic number of successful strikes on india to to bring it crushing down to the ground----for pakistan 5 would be enough---.

 

[randomradio]

Hi,

Youngman---with nuclear weapons it does not work like that----. The use of their force has a multiplier effect that is only unique to the nuc weapons----.

As the number of strikes keep increasing---the multiplier effect would go on increasing---.

Suppose pakistan lobbed 5 weapons on india---the effec would be 100 supposedly---but if 10 are launched the effect could be 1000---and if 15 are launched---the effect could be 2500---5000.

What is happening is that as the numbers of strikes increase---the panic in the community increase enmasse----the chaos takes a destruction of its own kind---and that is what is one of the biggest fear factors---the second fear factor that an average public does not know----is DIARHEA caused by radiation when it gets to you---.

So---the effects of nuc strike do not stop after the explosion of the bomb---they are just begining----.

In my numbers----10-15 is the magic number of successful strikes on india to to bring it crushing down to the ground----for pakistan 5 would be enough---.

You could launch all your nukes on India and it won't change anything. You could destroy Delhi and Mumbai and it won't change anything.

The economy will take a battering, India will lose a significant chunk of its economy temporarily. But cities are cheap in terms of construction. The nuked areas will be cleaned, construction will resume and the economy will take its course. During WW2, a large number of cities were razed and were rebuilt. India is richer than the WW2 economies today.

People have been taken over completely by this MAD propaganda. Even if there is a nuclear war between Russia and the US tomorrow, both countries will come out of it and rebuild. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is incomparable.

At least India has or will have deployed BMD, there is a chance some or a lot of the nukes will fail to hit their targets. On the other hand, what would Pakistan do? India can just as easily destroy Karachi and Lahore. India can void the Indus Water Treaty and start building dams on the Indus. If the objective is to kill more people, then India can destroy the large dams in the North and cut off international aid. This can all be followed up by an invasion if necessary.

India has $400B in forex. Rebuilding Delhi and Mumbai can be done inside $50-100B. Not counting the private sector which will be keen on absorbing land in the areas. Does Pakistan have the ability to rebuild Karachi and Lahore?

 

[MastanKhan]

A Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flies a training mission over Tucson, Arizona.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

You could launch all your nukes on India and it won't change anything. You could destroy Delhi and Mumbai and it won't change anything.

The economy will take a battering, India will lose a significant chunk of its economy temporarily. But cities are cheap in terms of construction. The nuked areas will be cleaned, construction will resume and the economy will take its course. During WW2, a large number of cities were razed and were rebuilt. India is richer than the WW2 economies today.

People have been taken over completely by this MAD propaganda. Even if there is a nuclear war between Russia and the US tomorrow, both countries will come out of it and rebuild. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is incomparable.

At least India has or will have deployed BMD, there is a chance some or a lot of the nukes will fail to hit their targets. On the other hand, what would Pakistan do? India can just as easily destroy Karachi and Lahore. India can void the Indus Water Treaty and start building dams on the Indus. If the objective is to kill more people, then India can destroy the large dams in the North and cut off international aid. This can all be followed up by an invasion if necessary.

India has $400B in forex. Rebuilding Delhi and Mumbai can be done inside $50-100B. Not counting the private sector which will be keen on absorbing land in the areas. Does Pakistan have the ability to rebuild Karachi and Lahore?

Bang on target.

Nukes have become a boogyman and people simply overstate their effectiveness by over a factor of 1000.

These are effect of largest Pakistani Nukes in Airburst mode.

1. Fireball Radius = 280m = 0.25 Sq Km area.
2. Radiation Radius (500 rem) = 1.16 Km= 4.25 Sq Km.
3. Air Blast Radius (5 psi = Residential Buildings/Buildings not made of Concrete; collapse)= 2.5 Km = 19.6 Sq Km
4. Thermal radiation (Cause third degree burn to those who are directly exposed)= 3.05 sq Km = 29.3 Sq Km.
5. Fallout = 0.

In Groundburst mode:

1. Fireball Radius = 360m = 0.41 Sq Km area.
2. Radiation Radius (500 rem) = 0.77 Km= 1,88 Sq Km.
3. Air Blast Radius (5 psi = Residential Buildings/Buildings not made of Concrete; collapse)= 1.61 Km = 8.13 Sq Km
4. Thermal radiation (Cause third degree burn to those who are directly exposed)= 2.74 sq Km = 23.6 Sq Km.
5. Fallout = 0.


This is effect of biggest Pakistani Nuke. Of these no3 and no4 does not apply in case of war (no one be camping on grounds of India gate during war).

Effect of Indian Nukes are little larger than Pakistani, but smaller still.


Even to significantly damage a city like Delhi Mumbai or Karachi , opponent would need 20 Nukes each. An Indian strike force of 300 Su30 MKI (or Rafael or Jaguars) loaded by mix of Thermobaric and Bunker buster bombs would cause much more damage to Karachi than an Indian nuke, even though their explosive payload is less than 1000 times of a Nuke. Nuke concentrate its damage in just a Km of its detonation point, but a bomber raid would spread out damage, evenly.

Actually India could destroy Pakistan more efficiently by tunneling through Pir Panjal range and diverting whole Indus system into Rajasthan.

 

[Tank131]

Well there were chemical weapons which have been shoved into the category of WMDs.. Saddam did gas populations he did not like and probably had some lying around just in case, but it was essentlaly Bush Sr and Cheney trying to finish the Job of GW-1.

They had actually hoped that the effects of GW-1 would topple Saddam and kept trying to incite an internal regime change but at the end decided that he had to go the other way.

Actually George HW Bush (senior) never wanted to invade Iraq. He wrote that toppling Saddam Hussein would have created a power vacuum in the ME and lead to turmoil (he was right). He specifically has harsh words for Cheney who he termed "an iron *** who wanted to build his own empire" and Rumsfeld who he called " an arrogant fellow who did not serve the president well". Bush Sr was never for the war in Iraq but kept quiet about his views until recently. Read his book and you will see he was very much a different cut than his foolish son.

 

[for truth]

@Immortan.Joe @randomradio

Pakistanis use the argument "India introduced nuclear weapons in south Asia first"....this is a lie.

the Devil lies in the detail....

back when India tested its nuclear weapon in 1970's, it mostly was a failure, and that is why we went on to test the second time in 1998.

But according to the available records on Pakistan, they already had a fully functional nuclear weapon ready by 1980's (supplied by china).

India was merely experimenting with atomic reactions in bomb making in 1970's to 1990's, we had not mastered or cracked the art of making a nuclear bomb. It was Pakistanis who first got a fully functional nuclear weapon.

In short, while India was still experimenting, Pakistan already had a functional nuclear bomb.

India was the first to conduct nuclear test in south Asia, but not the first to introduce nuclear weapons in south Asia.

(testing is not the same as inducting a weapon.)

And so to say that "India first introduced nuclear weapons in south Asia" isn't true.