How important are Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

[araz]

There will come a time when this will be proven wrong however to date this stance stands true. The only instance of use of Nukes has been against a country that had no means to reciprocate with a similatr device. The fact that they were not caucasians is besides the point. By the way I wouldnt degrade others with the sort of holier than thou remarks that you have been passing. It is not the sign of someone who has knowledge.
regards
Araz

 

[Black Widow]

If Pakistan didnt have those weapons..India had 'tried it' long ago.
It the scare of tit for tat stopping india.

fools paradise....

Not worth my reaction..

 

[Thorough Pro]

Who can deny they kept india at bay in 99, 2002, 2008

Recent events with North Korea makes one think how important are nuclear weapons.
For north korea,their nuclear weapons saved them from an all out attack and from a suffocating embargo.The type of embargo saddam's iraq suffered for a decade.
Many people are against Pakistan's nuclear weapons,but they serve Pakistan well.
Pakistan does not have an economic barrier such as Japan or many other countries have.
Japanese currency floats in the international currency market and the world will suffer economic losses and for that reason and many other reasons nobody will want to attack japan,and many countries will offer military help.
Same story with saudi arabia,their oil is traded in international market and they are the ones responsible for projecting US dollar as the main trading currency internationally.House of Saud made deal with Americans that they will sell their oil only in USD and no other currency.A deal that stands today and saves them from American invasion despite Osama bin laden being Saudi.
Pakistan has none if that luxury.Its not a well connected country.The world wont miss anything on economic frontier if Pakistan ceases to exist.
For all those reasons Pakistan's nuclear weapons are important for the country's existance.
The world wont want Pakistan in North korea's situation.When they felt threatened they only had one option,to go for a nuclear war as they dont have conventional fire power.
But even USA sells weapons to Pakistan so that Pakistan has an option to fight a conventional war instead of having only a nuclear option like north korea.
So in Pakistan's case nuclear weapons are vital for country's existance.
What other safety we got from an all out attack? Or a crippling embargo? Not much.

Who can deny they kept india at bay in 99, 2002, 2008

Recent events with North Korea makes one think how important are nuclear weapons.
For north korea,their nuclear weapons saved them from an all out attack and from a suffocating embargo.The type of embargo saddam's iraq suffered for a decade.
Many people are against Pakistan's nuclear weapons,but they serve Pakistan well.
Pakistan does not have an economic barrier such as Japan or many other countries have.
Japanese currency floats in the international currency market and the world will suffer economic losses and for that reason and many other reasons nobody will want to attack japan,and many countries will offer military help.
Same story with saudi arabia,their oil is traded in international market and they are the ones responsible for projecting US dollar as the main trading currency internationally.House of Saud made deal with Americans that they will sell their oil only in USD and no other currency.A deal that stands today and saves them from American invasion despite Osama bin laden being Saudi.
Pakistan has none if that luxury.Its not a well connected country.The world wont miss anything on economic frontier if Pakistan ceases to exist.
For all those reasons Pakistan's nuclear weapons are important for the country's existance.
The world wont want Pakistan in North korea's situation.When they felt threatened they only had one option,to go for a nuclear war as they dont have conventional fire power.
But even USA sells weapons to Pakistan so that Pakistan has an option to fight a conventional war instead of having only a nuclear option like north korea.
So in Pakistan's case nuclear weapons are vital for country's existance.
What other safety we got from an all out attack? Or a crippling embargo? Not much.

 

[FaujHistorian]

There will come a time when this will be proven wrong however to date this stance stands true. The only instance of use of Nukes has been against a country that had no means to reciprocate with a similatr device. The fact that they were not caucasians is besides the point. By the way I wouldnt degrade others with the sort of holier than thou remarks that you have been passing. It is not the sign of someone who has knowledge.
regards
Araz

I am in ardent student of US-Japan tussle during WW-2.

Japan air-force was totally gone.

US airforce had complete control of Japanese skies.

They were fire bombing city after city.

Japanese Ambassador was in DC negotiating a surrender

But the hawks in Tokyo kept on pushing for more war.

US forces were ready to invade mainland but worried about HUGE losses (in light of IwoJima debacle).

So the question was to do land invasion or continue firebombing for another 6 moths.

Nuke was used to replace and end firebombing.

It was not a first in line offensive weapon as some want to point out.


Even if Japan had a nuke at that time, there was no way to deliver it. As its airforce was gone.


So your assumptions on US-Japan are very simplistic and hence incorrect.


peace

 

[Aka123]

Why it is that so many posters on this thread have refused to study history and thus, show up with 3rd grade sarkari school issued kiddie books knowledge.

Pathetic. Really Pathetic. !


Here is a bit of education for the kiddos (based on the intellectual level unfortunately).


71 war had two fronts. East and the West.


Eastern front started with economic and later social unrest in the then E. Pakistan.
-- This allowed India to push 60,000 regular and irregular terroirsts into the area
-- These terrorist wrecked heavoc from March 1971 through end of November.
-- These terrorists raped Bengalid and Behari women (repeat of 1946 incidences)
-- However Pak army held its ground



Then for $tupid reasons (well there was intel that India is about to attack the Easter front)

-- Pakistani army opened up the Western front.
-- This was based on an outdated plan by Pakistani army that said we'll defend East by attacking India from the West.


Then the rest they say was history.



Lessons learned.


**. Pakistan will not be attacked directly.
India used asymmetric means aka terrorism for good 9 months or so.
** Economic and social unrest will udo Pakistan first before any military means will be used against it.
**. This was long enough time for Pakistani government and especially politicians to come to some conclusion and stop the $tupid @rse bloodshed
**. And prevent India from doing anymore harm to Pakistan.
**. Starting the 71 war based on outdated plan was $stupid @rse idea by the Pak army.


**. Logistics for the pak troops posted in the Eastern front were practically zero when Pakistani government allowed the $stupid @rse Ganga to be blown up in Lahore airport.


And the list goes on.

And you my dear sitting in a comfy UK apartment refuse to go the local library and learn a bit before posting half-truths aka cr@p that is not too different from the OP. Sorry to say.


peace to you.



Sample set for your analysis is too small.

this is why your stance is filled with false assumptions sorry to say.


Peace.

Bro I am sorry but I have to contradict with you in this case. Can you please share with me the source of the bold part ?

Well in the mean time you can have a look at this Neutral article below by a Pakistani Journalist and reported by BBC.

BBC News - Bangladesh war: The article that changed history

Thanks!!

 

[Darth Vader]

Try to sum up in 2 words Life and death

 

[FaujHistorian]

Bro I am sorry but I have to contradict with you in this case. Can you please share with me the source of the bold part ?

Well in the mean time you can have a look at this Neutral article below by a Pakistani Journalist and reported by BBC.

BBC News - Bangladesh war: The article that changed history

Thanks!!

My account is based on multiple sources. The BBC is just one of them.

Another account that you must dig up is the interview of Gen. Manekshaw. He himself admitted that Indira asked him to attack on E. Bengal in March.

However he refused that it can't be done.

Then he talks about pushing 60,000 insurgents into E. Pakistan. He called them Shah-Beg Bahini.


He admitted that Pakistani army was able to largely neutralize the insurgents.

Then Indira ordered him to attack E. Pakistan.


He said they had planned to start the war but Pakistan got the intel and attacked from the Western front.



The bottom line is that we have to be honest to listen to multiple sources.


My stance is that BDesh should have been given independence without any police operation. or army operations.

They were and they are our brothers.

And no one should kill or injur his brother if they want some kind of self rule in an area that is 1000s of miles away.

But remember big countries do not give up their territory that easily.

UK fought a blood war for a little island (Falkland) that is 1000s of miles away.

India crushed Punjab insurgency that was not too different from what Pakistani army did in BDesh.


So the bottom line is we must read from multiple perspectives and see how YOU will do in the similar situation within India.


peace

 

[Aka123]

My account is based on multiple sources. The BBC is just one of them.

Another account that you must dig up is the interview of Gen. Manekshaw. He himself admitted that Indira asked him to attack on E. Bengal in March.

However he refused that it can't be done.

Then he talks about pushing 60,000 insurgents into E. Pakistan. He called them Shah-Beg Bahini.


He admitted that Pakistani army was able to largely neutralize the insurgents.

Then Indira ordered him to attack E. Pakistan.


He said they had planned to start the war but Pakistan got the intel and attacked from the Western front.



The bottom line is that we have to be honest to listen to multiple sources.


My stance is that BDesh should have been given independence without any police operation. or army operations.

They were and they are our brothers.

And no one should kill or injur his brother if they want some kind of self rule in an area that is 1000s of miles away.

But remember big countries do not give up their territory that easily.

UK fought a blood war for a little island (Falkland) that is 1000s of miles away.

India crushed Punjab insurgency that was not too different from what Pakistani army did in BDesh.


So the bottom line is we must read from multiple perspectives and see how YOU will do in the similar situation within India.


peace

Ok can you please share the source.

Even mine is based on multiple reports. Regarding multiple source below is another link of a NBC live report on 1971.

Thanks!!

Some more............

Thanks!!

 

[Jango]

Bangladesh war is not up for discussion in this thread.

Kindly keep on topic.

 

[Aka123]

Bangladesh war is not up for discussion in this thread.

Kindly keep on topic.

Sorry for that. Since the topic came in, had to post. Will refrain from going off topic hence forth. Thanks!!

 

[2ndslip]

Clearly nukes are central to Pakistan's defence posturing and doctrine. Pakistan faces a numerically far superior force (3:1) and so WMD's allow us to maintain some degree of military balance. They also ensure that any war will be short and limited to avoid it escalating to a nuclear exchange.

This allows for a great levelling as Pakistan does not have to prep for a prolonged war, which obviously favours India as a simple function of its resource base.

 

[Safriz]

I am in ardent student of US-Japan tussle during WW-2.

Japan air-force was totally gone.

US airforce had complete control of Japanese skies.

They were fire bombing city after city.

Japanese Ambassador was in DC negotiating a surrender

But the hawks in Tokyo kept on pushing for more war.

US forces were ready to invade mainland but worried about HUGE losses (in light of IwoJima debacle).

So the question was to do land invasion or continue firebombing for another 6 moths.

Nuke was used to replace and end firebombing.

It was not a first in line offensive weapon as some want to point out.


Even if Japan had a nuke at that time, there was no way to deliver it. As its airforce was gone.


So your assumptions on US-Japan are very simplistic and hence incorrect.


peace

so basically you want to put a blind trust on a country who never misses a chance to stomp on us?
They are reduced to dirty politics to satisfy their grudge against us...and you expect them not to harm us..
wake up and get out from under your pillow.

they have problems in issuing visa to our players,our womens team was locked up in a stadium and they do what they can to destroy our image internationally and are allies with all our known and unknown enemies.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Clearly nukes are central to Pakistan's defence posturing and doctrine. Pakistan faces a numerically far superior force (3:1) and so WMD's allow us to maintain some degree of military balance. They also ensure that any war will be short and limited to avoid it escalating to a nuclear exchange.

This allows for a great levelling as Pakistan does not have to prep for a prolonged war, which obviously favours India as a simple function of its resource base.

Dear poster.


In a desperate effort to justify your view, please do not mutilate military history.

-- Pakistan-India $tupid wars have always been short, nukies or no nukies.

-- Pakistan's 1 million man army+reserves etc. have always had a deterrence, nukies or no nukies.


So I urge you to to not confuse things for the already confused masses.


peace

so basically you want to put a blind trust on a country who never misses a chance to stomp on us?
They are reduced to dirty politics to satisfy their grudge against us...and you expect them not to harm us..
wake up and get out from under your pillow.

they have problems in issuing visa to our players,our womens team was locked up in a stadium and they do what they can to destroy our image internationally and are allies with all our known and unknown enemies.

Dear bro!

What kind of silly argument is this?

Did you just come out of elementary school?


Who can trust a sworn enemy?


The only thing you all should do is "trust your own army", and trust Gen. Kiyani or whoever is incharge.

Pak army has always defended our borders nukies or no-nukies.


Thank you

 

[Safriz]

Dear poster.


In a desperate effort to justify your view, please do not mutilate military history.

-- Pakistan-India $tupid wars have always been short, nukies or no nukies.

-- Pakistan's 1 million man army+reserves etc. have always had a deterrence, nukies or no nukies.


So I urge you to to not confuse things for the already confused masses.


peace




Dear bro!

What kind of silly argument is this?

Did you just come out of elementary school?


Who can trust a sworn enemy?


The only thing you all should do is "trust your own army", and trust Gen. Kiyani or whoever is incharge.

Pak army has always defended our borders nukies or no-nukies.


Thank you

neither am i silly nor did i come out of elementary school...
An army without weapons is nothing....Even an elementary school kid knows that..
Specially when the army is outnumbered and out gunned by miles.

 

[2ndslip]

Sorry broski, but nukes does ensure a certain level of escalation will not be reached.