Nuclear Artillery

[Umair Nawaz]

i was browsing wikipedia and it claimed that Pakistan uses it. Can anyone conform this?

 

[The Deterrent]

i was browsing wikipedia and it claimed that Pakistan uses it. Can anyone conform this?

The passage you were reading is taken from an article by Jeffery Lewis, which terms the Nasr missiles as Nuclear Artillery, since they are a modified form of Multiple Rocket Artillery.

 

[nomi007]

may be they indicate hatf-IX Nasr (missile)
OR
AR-1A / A-100E 300mm Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

 

[Amaa'n]

My bet would be on nasr as it as the range and the effective raduis of an artillery and the multiple rocket launcher.

 

[Anshab]

My bet would be neither of them cause the design was not tested.

 

[kashifahmed]

are you talking about nuclear artillery or wikipedia?

 

[airomerix]

Can you paste the link please? I cant seem to find it.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Can you paste the link please? I cant seem to find it.

Write nuclear article fully its claimed there and later in the list of countries too on same page.

 

[ejaz007]

M-109 is nuclear capable artillery gun and is being used by Pakistan. Although I am not sure we have been supplied M-109 capable of firing nuclear warheads.

 

[Safriz]

the guns required are too big and bulky to move around.
not a feasible way of nuclear attack

 

[Alpha1]

the guns required are too big and bulky to move around.
not a feasible way of nuclear attack

too vunreable to air assault too plus pathetic range

 

[illusion8]

Nukes in an artillery shell? - aren't nukes supposed to be handled with care? how does loading by hand and firing nukes from a gun become a safe way of dispensing nukes? and what is the purpose of firing nukes supposedly in one's own area, or at most on the border region. It would be treated as a nuke attack nonetheless.

 

[The Deterrent]

the guns required are too big and bulky to move around.
not a feasible way of nuclear attack

I guess you are referring to Atomic Annie (M65), the 280mm Artillery piece. It was big and heavy, but not the latest (70s-80s) nuclear artillery shells, which had a diameter of 155mm.

Nukes in an artillery shell? - aren't nukes supposed to be handled with care? how does loading by hand and firing nukes from a gun become a safe way of dispensing nukes? and what is the purpose of firing nukes supposedly in one's own area, or at most on the border region. It would be treated as a nuke attack nonetheless.

As long as the SOP is being followed, everything can be done with care. The core can be kept separate till the last moment. The cores of missile warheads are also handled by hand sometimes.
The impact area doesn't matters, as long as the friendly forces do not come under fire. The yield is too low for a large scale harmful radioactive contamination.

 

[Hyperion]

That's where you are wrong friend. A strike within ones own country, to protect the territorial integrity is justified by all conventions. Even if it's a nuclear strike, only caveat here being "not against unarmed populace".

Nukes in an artillery shell? - aren't nukes supposed to be handled with care? how does loading by hand and firing nukes from a gun become a safe way of dispensing nukes? and what is the purpose of firing nukes supposedly in one's own area, or at most on the border region. It would be treated as a nuke attack nonetheless.

 

[karan.1970]

That's where you are wrong friend. A strike within ones own country, to protect the territorial integrity is justified by all conventions. Even if it's a nuclear strike, only caveat here being "not against unarmed populace".

Yeah.. But why would a country convert its own land into a nuclear wasteland. Hypothetically if Indian armor intrudes 50 km inside Punjab, would Pak govt risk contaminating its most fertile area for next 100 years, to blow up a few hundred of Indian tanks ?