sigatoka said:
Neo, you confuse being a nuclear power with the act of detonating a nuclear bomb. I strongly believe that there is a difference and Pakistan could have exploited this difference to its advantage in the same way that Israel has
:reading:
Disagreed!
We have come in the open with our nuclear capabilities. Any western nation who desires good relationships with us will have to accept us as a nuclear power.
The ongoing saga of on-and-off weaponembargoe and economic sanctions finally comes to an end!
Israel is a nuclear power but not a "declared nuclear power". How does a nation being a Declared Nuclear power? It does so by detonating a nuclear bomb or by officially declaring it is a nuclear power
Israel is a different case and has full backing by US.
We never had that advantage.
You claim that India's economy has not suffered from detonation and the economic sanctions that followed because its economy grew at 5%. Could you please give a link showing the growth rates of India immediately after its nuclear detonation. Even if I assume that 5% growth is correct; the question is not how much India did grow but how much more growth it would have experienced without Nuclear detonation
Download this as an Excel spreadsheet
2000
2001
2002
2003
GDP per head ($ at PPP) 2,360 2,500 2,620 2,830
GDP (% real change pa) 3.95 5.14 4.59 8.10
Government consumption (% of GDP) 12.85 12.46 12.51 12.80
Budget balance (% of GDP) -5.28 -4.73 -5.90 -5.40
Consumer prices (% change pa; av) 4.01 3.78 4.30 3.81
Public debt (% of GDP) 56.52 57.66 60.60 62.20
Labour costs per hour (USD) 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.74
Recorded unemployment (%) 9.17 9.20 9.90 9.50
Current-account balance/GDP -0.59 0.37 0.91 0.50
Foreign-exchange reserves (mUS$
37,902 45,871 67,666 98,903
Secondly because you claim that Indias economy did not suffer from Nuclear by extension you attempt to create the impression that Pakistan also wouldnt suffer from nuclear detonation
No, thats a misconception!
It is a fact that smaller nations are more dependant on trade for prosperity than very large nations. This is because prosperity in the modern world depends on nations specialising and exporting in areas where it is superior and importing in areas of weakness. Very large nations like the U.S. are able to specialise in many areas from Agriculture to Car to Chemicals and every thing in between. Smaller nations like Singapore are forced to make difficult choices on what to specialise. If U.S. and Singpore both nations with similar levels of per capita income were forced to a position of zero international trade the economy of Singapore would totally collapse while U.S. would be slightly poorer but would still do ok. Therefore whatever negative impacts there were on the Indian economy of sanctions; the negative impacts on the Pakistani would be magnified because of its smaller size
Correct!
Thirdly you claim that because Pakistan's program was uranium enrichment and not Plutonium, there couldnt be accurate cold simulations. Could you elaborate on why this is so?
Cold simulations are accurate from both plutonium and enriched uranium device.
Only problem is that you cannot get real data unless you detonate a device.
Our policy is to have a refined delivery system by missiles as well as by air and therefor we needed different yieldtests.
To the fourth point, Uncertain Retaliation. This means that Pak. should not tie down its nuclear strategy to well defined trigger points. This means Pak. should never committ to No first use policy. It should not committ itself to using Nukes only when Pakistan is split in two by an armoured thrust by India. India while having some idea on what would trigger nuclear war must still be left guessing under what specific situation Pakistan would initiate nuclear exchange. Why is a trigger happy situation a desirable nuclear strategy?? Because it constrains Indias option in deploying conventional forces and more importantly prevents situations from developing into a situation where nuclear exchange does occurr
Pakistan did not sign NFU agreement with India nor do we believe in such doctrine.
Our nuclear arsenal is the only reasonable deterrance against India as we're totally outnumbered in conventional field.
Signing NFU would be a political sueside.
In the Fifth point you claim that the Government always knows best in relation to security issues. I strongly disagree, if it did always know best why was Pakistan ripped apart in two in 1971?? Just because the government decided to detonate doesnt make it the right decision
I meant that people shouldn't have a say when it comes to national security.
But thats my opinion only.
1971 we lost due external and internal affairs, should discuss that in some other thread.
To the last point you claim there is no correct time to detonate nuclear weapon because any time is a bad time. I strongly disagree with this point. Lets go to the beginning, after the Manhattan project the U.S. detonated the nuclear bomb in the desert. Japan didnt immediately find out about it. The U.S. then proceeded to Barbeque a few hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Being the first nation to become a nuclear power; detonation of Nuclear weapons had no negative effects. It had positive effects because U.S. scientists were sure it would do its job
How can you compare US to India or Pakistan???
US and most western countries have the priviledges no others have.
That includes the right to have a huge nuclear arsenal.
Anytime we or another country would detonate a nuclear device, it would come under severe pressure from the US at all time, so there is no ideal timing for that.
When Pakistan detonated its nuclear warheads, lots of nations with the use of satellits found out about it and Pakistan also declared itself a nuclear power. Secondly I find it unbelievable that Pakistani nuclear scientists needed to detonate the nuclear warheads to know it worked. Nuclear technology is over 50 years old and had the first nuclear powers not been so aggressive in nuclear proliferation, every nation and its dog would have had a nuclear weapon. What I mean to say is that Pakistani scientists would have assured the political leadership that the warheads did work without the need for detonation and therefore the act of detonation was a political statement and NOT a scientific one
Already explained that.
We needed data in different yields.
Pakistan did have an ideal time to detonate its nuclear weapons. The ideal time would have been in a nuclear exchange between India and the targets would be Delhi, New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore. And if by some freaky bad luck Pakistan's launched warheads didnt work there would have been no need to worry because all Pakistanis would be dead. The reason we worry about whether our warheads work is not because we feel sadistic and want to kill Indians; it is to make sure that Indians believe it does and so prevent them from launching their Nukes. Also with Nuclear weapons Pakistan can extract conventional warfare advantages by preventing all the elite Indian armoured units bunching up together for a thrust into Pakistan
Its called MAD.