What's new

Pakistan and the FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) - Conference on Disarmament

Similarly China is a bigger country and a bigger enemy, then that thing has to be kept in mind, since Pakistan knows it clearly, it should have India's concern in mind too.

And also India's 'no first use policy' is a blessing for Pakistan. It would be entirely upto Pakistan to start a nuclear conflict or not. So as long as Pakistan doesn't use nukes , they wont have to worry about getting hit by India.
That policy is a disadvantage to 'India'. So if Pakistan has to strike first, it would definitely strike at strategic places to take the advantage, if it does sucessfully evade India's anti-ballistic missiles. So its 1-1.

Don't worry, Pakistan is not gonna use its nukes on any strategic places or Indian cities, that would be for last resort, when MAD has to be achieved.

The initial usage would be on the battle ground, to stop incoming advancing forces, most probably at the border areas.
 
.
Well logically, how can one believe that Pakistan has more fissile material then India ?? Who has more nuke plants working to produce fissile material ?? Who started the program first ?? Who has more money, resources ?? Who has more technical capabilities, infrastructure ??

So, answer all these questions and may be you will find the answer that its to the contrary compared to the above link produced by you.

The answer to all those questions is obviously India. But here is the most important question: Who has the need and wanting for nuclear weapons? Its Pakistan, and that's painfully obvious. India has nowhere near the nuclear ambition of Pakistan. We have a real no first use policy, and our nukes are there for the simple purpose of deterring a WMD attack on Indian soil. In other words, if others didn't have WMD, we wont need it. But pakistan's stance is completely different. It has a dedicated first use policy, and even if India didnt have a single nuke, its likely that Pak will use hers.

Hope you can understand, sometimes these statements are given to pursue some other course of action.

And the unfair talk is being done regarding the fissile material and the disarmament talks, not conventional means, so don't bring in conventional means.

The discussion is about the statement of Pak envoy, that we are at a disadvantage in the fissile material area due to the superior fissile material producing capability of India.

So have the discussion on this topic, no need to bring in conventional arms or F-16s as they have nothing to do with what the article is saying.

Yes, please keep that in mind when India talks of concerns about pak armed forces build up. And about our concern with China-Pak nuclear deal.
 
.
PR Front.............good news and good move by Pakistan...........however, needs a stronger lobby who can push forward this sort of information to the International community further............
 
.
The answer to all those questions is obviously India. But here is the most important question: Who has the need and wanting for nuclear weapons? Its Pakistan, and that's painfully obvious. India has nowhere near the nuclear ambition of Pakistan. We have a real no first use policy, and our nukes are there for the simple purpose of deterring a WMD attack on Indian soil. In other words, if others didn't have WMD, we wont need it. But pakistan's stance is completely different. It has a dedicated first use policy, and even if India didnt have a single nuke, its likely that Pak will use hers.

Do you have the official policy issued by the NCA of Pakistan which states first use policy ?? And just like why India got WMDs to counter someone else with WMDs, Pakistan had to have them after its arch rival got the tech. So, we both have the same reason, India got it due to China as they say, we got them due to India, had India not gone for WMDs, we wouldn't have, so its pretty obvious why we had them.

And as said, plzzz do provide the link to Pakistan officially stating that it has the first strike policy.

And also answer me, lets suppose, saying it again, just assume, India has no first strike policy, and God forbid somehow during war, its defences are broken and the enemy is on the move inside Indian territory and about to capture a large chunk of it, or wishes to dismember India by capturing some specific area, what are Indians gonna do, sing the no first strike policy or say to hell with it, India is at stake so lets use it on the incoming forces to halt their advance and regain what we have lost. Don't say it will never gonna happen or we India are very superior to have something like that happen to us, i just said, just assume the situation, would you keep the nukes stored at their silos or use them against the enemy who is about to capture good part of India.

So as per above scenario, implement it on this Indo-Pak region, we all know Pakistan can never overrun Indian defences or capture a big part of India, while on the contrary, India has the capability, the will, the ambition and the resources to overrun large part of Pakistan and capture large part of Pakistan and do whatever it wants to do with it, that being the reason India as no-first strike policy with respect to Pakistan as it knows Pakistan poses no threat, while Pakistan can not gamble with no first strike policy as it knows India has the wish and resources to overrun large part of it, thus it will have to use the nukes God forbid something like that happens and this is very logical, which i am regretted to state the Indian members don't understand. The superior one can say the no-first strike policy, while the inferior one can't as it knows it has the nukes for a specific reason.

USA, UK, NATO all have first strike policy, but as defensive measure, Pakistan's is no different then theirs. Simple reason as they know if someone superior invaded, they can't hold them off for long, one of the reasons why USSR used to think twice before thinking about any invasion of the Europe knowing they have overwhelming superiority over NATO.


Yes, please keep that in mind when India talks of concerns about pak armed forces build up. And about our concern with China-Pak nuclear deal.

yeah, its in my mind, but my statement was pointing to something else.
 
.
The superior one can say the no-first strike policy, while the inferior one can't as it knows it has the nukes for a specific reason.

Taimi, I think, the words, stronger and weaker could have been used in places of superior and inferior.

Think over it.
 
.
Unfair: Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Zamir Akram said his country would continue to hold the line, arguing that India now has an unfair advantage with bigger fissile material stockpiles and “discriminatory” nuclear cooperation deals with the United States.

Can Pakistan really effort a nuclear arms race with India or it should?? :disagree:

And about his second statement, what is 'discriminatory' about the nuke deal??? :confused:
 
.
The superior one can say the no-first strike policy, while the inferior one can't as it knows it has the nukes for a specific reason.

Instead of producing more nukes, to keep up number with India, Pakistan should invest that money to reduce conventional edge because they have to start and continue war with conventional weapons not nuclear one. At this point of time Pakistan after reaching certain number should focus on conventional systems.
 
.
Can Pakistan really effort a nuclear arms race with India or it should?? :disagree:

And about his second statement, what is 'discriminatory' about the nuke deal??? :confused:

Yes, it can and is already doing it. The initial cost of setting the set-up is expensive, later on its not as much expensive.

Plus, Pakistan is not looking to make thousands of nukes, rather it would be looking at a nuke warhead level of something like 100-200 warheads and maintain it once its achieved.

And the second statement is nothing about a nuclear deal, kindly read the article again, its talking about the intl nuke disarmament talks, in which Pakistan has said as India has more nuke fissile material generation capacity, due to which it is at a loss, thus it can't agree to these proposals for now, as it needs to have sufficient fissile material in its capacity against the huge fissile material of India.

So plz read it again.
 
.
Instead of producing more nukes, to keep up number with India, Pakistan should invest that money to reduce conventional edge because they have to start and continue war with conventional weapons not nuclear one. At this point of time Pakistan after reaching certain number should focus on conventional systems.

As said above, we are not looking at making hundreds of nukes or thousands, rather we would be looking at something around 150 or 200 may be, after that it would be maintenance of the achieved nuke warhead level. Which won't be as expensive, also told, that initial infrastructure has been put in place, now it would be maintained and would be less expensive compared to having conventional weapon systems.

And Pakistan is looking for conventional weapon systems as and when it can get and as per requirements.
 
.
YOu Pakistanis know damn well India has never wanted a war with you. Accept the fact that India is a regional superpower ad then you guys will succeed.
 
.
For India to succeed in her regional ambitions, she has to be at peace with her neighbors, that means no territorial problems and that means resolving the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan and other outstanding problems with China and Bangladesh and to restrain Tamils and refraining from providing assistance that may be "misconstrued" in Lanka and in Nepal, much Indian credibility has been lost -- so, in a sense India is in a cage, surrounded - if India are to rise and achieve her rightful place among nations of Asia, it must first solve her problems in South Asia. Bomb or no bomb, the issue is really whether Indian will accept being kept in a cage or will do the difficult things that it must do, and be accepted as a peaceful country in South Asia, and then in Asia, and then the world.
 
.
For India to succeed in her regional ambitions, she has to be at peace with her neighbors, that means no territorial problems and that means resolving the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan and other outstanding problems with China and Bangladesh and to restrain Tamils and refraining from providing assistance that may be "misconstrued" in Lanka and in Nepal, much Indian credibility has been lost -- so, in a sense India is in a cage, surrounded - if India are to rise and achieve her rightful place among nations of Asia, it must first solve her problems in South Asia. Bomb or no bomb, the issue is really whether Indian will accept being kept in a cage or will do the difficult things that it must do, and be accepted as a peaceful country in South Asia, and then in Asia, and then the world.

bas yaar yehi tho problem hai, har baath ghoom phir kar kashmir pe laathey hooo, yaara humein kashmir nahi dena hein samajthey kyon nahi ho baath ko.

And for the rest ,,oH yeah india is a ***** in the middle of roaring tigers rite??water comes from china they donot favor us have no treaty on it for sharing but when the same water flows from india we will have to have treaties with hostile nations or else the tigers will kill this little ***** cat..

Pakistan can annex balouch but india cant do it with kashmir...

Pakistan supports independence of kashmir but when tamils in srilanka wants freedom then GOP will supply ammo to srilanka army ,then human rights violation,oppression of minorities doesnot come in your mind isn't...heck with pakistan Sympathy with only muzzies rest all are partners for profit..
 
.
For India to succeed in her regional ambitions, she has to be at peace with her neighbors, that means no territorial problems and that means resolving the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan and other outstanding problems with China and Bangladesh and to restrain Tamils and refraining from providing assistance that may be "misconstrued" in Lanka and in Nepal, much Indian credibility has been lost -- so, in a sense India is in a cage, surrounded - if India are to rise and achieve her rightful place among nations of Asia, it must first solve her problems in South Asia. Bomb or no bomb, the issue is really whether Indian will accept being kept in a cage or will do the difficult things that it must do, and be accepted as a peaceful country in South Asia, and then in Asia, and then the world.

Can some one post about the Tamil secessionist movement in India that is currently underway? It seems to be I am not too informed inspite of being from Andhra Pradesh and being next door to Tamil Nadu and spending 4 years in Tamil Nadu, that some Pakistani living in Great Briton has more knowledge than I do.
 
.
Can some one post about the Tamil secessionist movement in India that is currently underway? It seems to be I am not too informed inspite of being from Andhra Pradesh and being next door to Tamil Nadu and spending 4 years in Tamil Nadu, that some Pakistani living in Great Briton has more knowledge than I do.

My folks are form Kerala....and I don;t have a clue what he is talking about.
 
.
I am from Tamilnadu and I myself dont have a cue....can anyone tell me about it? And have been living in Chennai since birth...so did something miss my eye?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom