Pakistan Clarifies Conditions for Tactical Nuclear Weapon Use Against India

[thesameguy]

Multiple statement by Musharraf, Dr.Samar and many others insist that Pakistan developed nuclear weapons indigenously without foreign help. The only help china gave was 80 kg of HEY to Zulfiqar Bhutto.
No country "gives " nuclear weapons design to another. Even the "conjoined twins " USA and UK had toto separately develop their own weapons design. USA did not give UK the bomb design, UP had to make their own,and these countries have one of the strangest ties in the world.
People here are assuming that China just keeps giving Pakistan nuclear weapon design and Pakistan just copy pastes and builds a bomb.
That's not how the world goes round, all countries closely guard their nuclear weapons design.
Going been the same logic, why it can't be assumed that India and Russia have been buddies and all Indian nuclear weapons are Russian copy pasted?
Another assumption being made and accepted Here is that Pakistan has no technology and no way of analyzing nuclear weapons design and the only way of building a nuke is to blast a full scale bomb and see if it works or not, well it'd not 1950s.
Computer software have come a very long way and computer simulation have replaced practical testing.
NILORE near Islamabad has all such facilities and is a very advanced nuclear facility.
About Nasr, it's motor body Is 39 cm wide and warhead cone is 25 cm wide. Shoot away your estimations

 

[Nilgiri]

Multiple statement by Musharraf, Dr.Samar and many others insist that Pakistan developed nuclear weapons indigenously without foreign help.

Lets take their word than shall we .

The only help china gave was 80 kg of HEY to Zulfiqar Bhutto.

Well yah can't contradict the above. I'm assuming you mean HEU?

Even the "conjoined twins " USA and UK had toto separately develop their own weapons design. USA did not give UK the bomb design, UP had to make their own,and these countries have one of the strangest ties in the world.

You obviously forget about this little thing called the Manhattan project. Read up on it sometime.

People here are assuming that China just keeps giving Pakistan nuclear weapon design and Pakistan just copy pastes and builds a bomb.

Not exactly like that, but essentially the basic design yes.

That's not how the world goes round, all countries closely guard their nuclear weapons design.

There are certain benefits to proliferating under the radar too.

Going been the same logic, why it can't be assumed that India and Russia have been buddies and all Indian nuclear weapons are Russian copy pasted?

Just read the reports regarding USSR reaction to Indian 1974 test....and compare to the US monitoring of Chinese help to Pakistan.

For example:

The Elephant in the Room: The Soviet Union and India’s Nuclear Program, 1967-1989 | Wilson Center

CNS - China's Nuclear Exports and Assistance to Pakistan

Another assumption being made and accepted Here is that Pakistan has no technology and no way of analyzing nuclear weapons design and the only way of building a nuke is to blast a full scale bomb and see if it works or not, well it'd not 1950s.
Computer software have come a very long way and computer simulation have replaced practical testing.

The problem lies in specific issues, if you care to read my earlier posts and query the lines directly. Generation change of Primary Pit Design provides real challenges beyond a certain threshold....that can not be cold or computer modelled without a plethora of existing physical test data and validation.

NILORE near Islamabad has all such facilities and is a very advanced nuclear facility.

No doubt can handle and process gen 1 spherical designs and iterations and perhaps gen 1.5 ellipse/basic cylindrical linear.

But gen 2 ovaloids etc.. is very questionable, you would need a facility more advanced and comprehensive than the US DARHT facility to model a gen 2 from scratch with high reliability. Such a facility would have appeared on the radar of the US among other advanced nations given the nature of equipment and science needed....and so far I can find no report or study regarding that. I'm talking massive X-ray accelerator which requires sizeable knowledge and knowhow of the engineering of such. Designing, testing and calibrating just the collimator itself would be a phenomenal undertaking....not to mention the base level references required from previous nuclear testing.

Anything less is a big gamble for a gen 2 design. Thats why countries simply test when they achieve notable pit design changes....several have fizzled.

About Nasr, it's motor body Is 39 cm wide and warhead cone is 25 cm wide. Shoot away your estimations

1 kt max. Compares well with SADM (scaled davy crockett) which was 27 by 40cm.

 

[The Deterrent]

The volume constraints of a cruise missile or artillery round lend themselves to linear implosion much better compared to a spherical geometry (which is only good for gravity bombs or 1st generation singular BM warheads) from a max yield per volume context.

The Davy Crockett IIRC is about the best you can get for a near spherical design (using just a touch above the bare critical mass of Pu)...and it gave a max of 1 kt....and it was an elliptical "egg" of 27 x 40 cm give or take. So for 5kt claimed by Nasr warhead, you would need an even more "eggy" two point hollow pit geometry. From what I've heard the US did do a test of the absolute bare minimum sized spherical design of something like 25.4 cm, and the yields were well into the sub kiloton range.

Basically the easiest way to conceptualize this is thinking about the effective package volume of a sphere compared to an ellipse ....the cruise missile diameter can become the minor axis of the ellipsoid....whereas with a sphere, the diameters are simply the same. I would suggest reading up on the Swan design primary when you have some spare time. Spherical is of course the most efficient in pure yield/kg material used (given the sphere is the minimum surface area per volume in nature)....its just it makes rather poor use of the cylindrical volume of a missile warhead.

I was talking about the efficiency being "higher" for a linear implosion earlier, but that is from a yield/volume context.

I get all that, but nobody claimed the 5kt yield on technical grounds. My assumption is that it is of sub-kiloton yield, or at best 1kt. Anything greater is an overkill for its purpose.

Again its the nature of "squashing" in the most per volume. MIRVs are basically many smaller warheads instead of one big one, so geometrically you need to "squash" them into more oblong/cylindrical arrangements like I mentioned earlier with the tactical designs. Although the same level of tactical minitaurisation is not required....especially for the secondary if its say a staged thermonuke (which will define the warhead base size most probably).
You can of course also big bigger and more rockets if you want to keep absolutely everything spherical (fatter heavier RV's)...but generally the rocket efficiency/production (and thus also RV design) is more important than conserving fissile material to that level.
Its an optimization game in the end. Like is explained here: W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It also touches upon symmetric (spherical) compared to more difficult linear nonsymmetric implosion that I was mentioning earlier.

I don't think that "squashing is necessary for fission-based MIRVs. Thermonuclear devices are another ball-game altogether, their staged arrangement facilitates a conical design.
Agreed about the rest.

 

[thesameguy]

I get all that, but nobody claimed the 5kt yield on technical grounds. My assumption is that it is of sub-kiloton yield, or at best 1kt. Anything greater is an overkill for its purpose.



I don't think that "squashing is necessary for fission-based MIRVs. Thermonuclear devices are another ball-game altogether, their staged arrangement facilitates a conical design.
Agreed about the rest.

sorry wrong quote. Reply was for @Nilgiri
Well obviously Dr.samar worked on Pakistani nukes for 40 years,so his word is far more credible than yours or mine. Same for Musharraf, he personally supervised Pakistani nuclear weapons development, so his word too is far more credible than say an Indian bloggers or a CIA analyst.
Also Donald Trump recently said in an interview that "Pakistan has nuclear weapons that actually work".
So yes we will have to take their word for it.
About Chinese assistance, giving 80 Kg HEU. is one thing and giving diagrams of their own nuclear weapons is another. By giving exact diagrams of your country's nuclear weapon design to another country no matter how big an ally, you are giving out the exact specifications and with that the weakness of your nuclear deterrent to a foreign country and you don't know where this info will end up. China couldn't have taken that risk when Pakistan was working on their Nclear weapons design in the 80s and 90s as it was the height of cold war and China was facing a realistic threat of nuclear annihilation. Even the 80 kg HEY was only given after orders from the highest Chinese authority ,Chairman Mao Zedong himself.
So I am not buying the assumption that China just gave Pakistan the blueprints of their nuclear weapons . Some technical help maybe, but actual design, not possible.
About technical capabilities of Pakistan, not believing that Pakistan can do anything sophisticated as you are insisting, works very well for Pakistan as much of the work slips under the radar unnoticed as prying eyes are not looking because they didn't think Pakistan can actually do that.
Starting from nuclear tests of 1998, that was a shock to the world as America didn't know about the ongoing work and was surprised but they did know about Indian preparation for nuclear tests and issued a statement of concerns before Indian pokhran 2 test.
Then Shaheen missile test was a shock,a surprise, and world press was full of articles saying how could a country like Pakistan make a solid fuel mussile of such accuracy as shaheen was observed by satellites and seen to have less than 100m CEP on first test.

Then Babur cruise missile test was a shock horror and again world press was buzzing with similar articles of speculations about how possibly a country like Pakistan build a cruise missile.
So as many Americans say,Pakistan has the ability to surprise and has done so many times. Not wonder our tactical nukes too are a hard to digest fact for all who think Pakistan can do nothing.

About neutron bomb, its a scientific fact that anything below 10kt is effectively a neutron bomb because from a device of such small size and absence of layers of fissile material for absorbtion of high energy neutrons, the neutrons will escape and high energy neutron flux from small under 10 it devices us far higher compared to higher yield devices.
Now it's upon the designers to be able to convert as much energy of the blast as possible into neutron influx as possible. It can be 10% of the yield ad nrtrons or 60%. If it is difficult, does not mean it is impossible.
Plenty of satellite images show tunnels still being dug in the same area where cold tests we're conducted.
About tank armour nullifying neutron effects, the jury is still out and what you are quoting is opinion not hard fact. There are opinions and arguments with scientific proof for both sides . Some say tank armour will totally protect crew,others are not so convinced.
A 1kt neuton flux device is lethal upto 280 meters from blast,compared to just 50 meters in blast oriented device of same yield,so a country like Pakistan,tweaking their low yield nukes for more neutrins and less blast us not impossible,as there are benefits of doing so.
About labs and ability to cold test,well a scaled down device of 100 ton yield can be tested anytime as it wont show on siesmic graphs. So the assumption that Pakistan is only relying on labs for low yield weapon design which they won't have is wrong on many levels.
You can Google laser isotope separation work done by Pakistan and to the shock horror of many,such complicated tech had been mastered by Pakistan and plenty of articles available online in that s regards by sipri , FAS and such.
About non spherical elliptical design of warheads, yes calculations have to be done 3d instead if 2d, again do you really think Pakistan will do it and then shout from rooftops? Nuclear ambiguity is Pakistan s policy. And again your assumption that since it is difficult so cannot be done is wrong as difficult does not mean impossible.
As they say proof is in the pudding, and if Pakistan Is parading missiles specially designed for small tactical weapons and knows well that they are facing a drunk with power enemy who might start a nuclear Holocaust in reply to a sub kiloton blast, so chances are that these tactical nuked are worthy of deployment and worth their metal, not the useless junk you are trying to portray.

 

[Brickwall]

............or Surrender

I though Surrender is not them, they rather die then fight another day

Look... Nasr can be a double edged sword for India.. Pak can always say and will say..to the world...tht we used it on our own territory, against invading indian troops...so we had all the moral justification... We did not destruct india, rather only its against invading forces in Pakistan... There will be much pressure on india globally, not to escalate and not retaliate with full force... Rather india will be heavilypressurised diplomatically, to retaliate only in a proportionate manner..India will have tough choice to make... If india retaliates with full force, as is the stated policy, then india will be seen as tha agressor, which invaded Pakistan and then escalated the nuclear conflict..... Anyways...Escalating the conflict means mutually assured destruction, which is against the premise of cold start.. So nasr fulfils its purpose, of acting as a deterrent to cold start

Your betting whole of your nuclear premise that India will be more humane then you.Great War Strategy.

Let me reassure , government who doesn't respond nuclear weapon with massive nuclear response,even if it saves the day, it will not be able to save itself in next elections

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

I though Surrender is not them, they rather die then fight another day

Ever you thought, with so much shrill voices on TNW coming from Pakistan since 2011,

why India abandoned the TNW plan in 2012? And why India is just sitting relax, and not even thinking of proportionate reply to TNW? Think about it.

 

[thesameguy]

I though Surrender is not them, they rather die then fight another day





Your betting whole of your nuclear premise that India will be more humane then you.Great War Strategy.

Let me reassure , government who doesn't respond nuclear weapon with massive nuclear response,even if it saves the day, it will not be able to save itself in next elections

So after a full blown nuclear exchange, there will be an election in India?

 

[rocket booster]

So after a full blown nuclear exchange, there will be an election in India?

Yes, do you have any problems with that?

 

[thesameguy]

@Nilgiri also in your comments you are implying that Pakistan cannot have an advanced design and can only have Manhattan project type basic nuclear weapon design.
May I remind you the weight of both Manhattan project bomb? Both uranium and plutonium typed weighed a hefty 4.5 tons which cannot be mounted on any missiles. Specially not in Pakistan case as our missiles only carry one ton or less.
In an interview Musharraf talked about this matter and clearly said that Pakistan has developed very sophisticated trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons.
Also when nawaz sharif came to the throne this time he had a meeting with Strategic command and a clear press release was thinking issued and it said that Pakistan will continue refining and developing nuclear weapons

 

[Nilgiri]

I get all that, but nobody claimed the 5kt yield on technical grounds. My assumption is that it is of sub-kiloton yield, or at best 1kt. Anything greater is an overkill for its purpose.

OK, the 5kt claim I took from: Experts: Missile Test Firing Shows Development Complete | Defense News | defensenews.com

Also our esteemed member shaheen missile kept spouting it. Thats why I had to get into the nitty gritties as to why 5kt in this size of package is quite far fetched.

I don't think that "squashing is necessary for fission-based MIRVs. Thermonuclear devices are another ball-game altogether, their staged arrangement facilitates a conical design.
Agreed about the rest.

Yes squashing is not absolutely necessary to produce a deterrent. It basically would increase the output per warhead from say 20 - 30kt range to double or triple that (using proportionally more material of course).....but basically each warhead would be more volumetrically optimized. Also means you could fit more MIRVs on the same carrier since you get a certain yield in a smaller package. Its basically the way the more linear dimension of an ovaloid/cylinder fits more volume within a constrained cone compared to a sphere.

Of course basic minimum deterrence is not a big driver for this...so we will have to wait and see what course Pakistan's deterrence takes over the coming years. My gut feeling is that if and when India tests again (and most likely that will be a 200kt staged design)...then Pakistan will have some warheads lined up with Gen 2 designs for test verification. Basically expanding the breadth of deterrence as opposed to the earlier establishment of it.

 

[Shariq786]

Why the hell China and Iran will come to your aid when Pakistan will lose the moral backing after using the Nuk weapon first Try to think and comprehend.
Attack on invading forces.? Yeah. Make your own country a Nuclear waste. What an idea Sirji. India and the world will make sure to destroy the rest of the N weapons if it ever uses one.

thats the stupidist thing i have ever heard your forces can only invade from the plains of punjab right ??

we have no one living there and at the time of war places get evacuated and its non of yours or anyone else problem what we do with OUR COUNTRY'S LAND read the bold part again...

2nd what will INDIA do after this ?? Nuke us right than we'll make sure that there is no INDIA if there will no Pakistan and if INDIA doesn't use nuke than we'll still have no morale let down cuz we did it to save our country from the AGGRESSOR's INVADING FORCES. (just for you. invading means enemies forces attacking your land and according to cold start thats what you'll do)

so you don't worry what will the world think SH!T .....

 

[Nilgiri]

Well obviously Dr.samar worked on Pakistani nukes for 40 years,so his word is far more credible than yours or mine. Same for Musharraf, he personally supervised Pakistani nuclear weapons development, so his word too is far more credible than say an Indian bloggers or a CIA analyst.

Deterrence can be achieved by many ways. Overplaying a hand, bluffs and semi-bluffs are all part of it. You can't take anyone's word guaranteed without physical testing/evidence is all I am saying.

It was a Pakistani member here that brought up that the first Pakistan design was based on CHIC-4. Not me. I don't know the level or breadth of Chinese assistance, I can only make educated guesses given what I know about nuclear material fabrication, complexity of initiator design compared to my impression of the Scientific and engineering manpower Pakistan had at its disposal in the 70s, 80s and 90s. No one can no for sure....thats where difference of opinions lie, and we will have to leave it at that.

Also Donald Trump recently said in an interview that "Pakistan has nuclear weapons that actually work".
So yes we will have to take their word for it.

I never doubted that. Gen 1 spherical (probably but not certainly CHIC-4 based/derived) boosted fission designs were all tested in Chagai. Where have I denied that?

About Chinese assistance, giving 80 Kg HEU. is one thing and giving diagrams of their own nuclear weapons is another. By giving exact diagrams of your country's nuclear weapon design to another country no matter how big an ally, you are giving out the exact specifications and with that the weakness of your nuclear deterrent to a foreign country and you don't know where this info will end up. China couldn't have taken that risk when Pakistan was working on their Nclear weapons design in the 80s and 90s as it was the height of cold war and China was facing a realistic threat of nuclear annihilation. Even the 80 kg HEY was only given after orders from the highest Chinese authority ,Chairman Mao Zedong himself.
So I am not buying the assumption that China just gave Pakistan the blueprints of their nuclear weapons . Some technical help maybe, but actual design, not possible.

Again lets agree to disagree about some specifics. End result is Pakistan has a guaranteed deterrence however it went about getting it. We can only speculate about the level of cooperation between the two....and our inherent biases will come into play inevitably. Absolute truth of the matter is unknown to anyone here....and those that may know won't share the whole story to the last detail....which is understandable.

About technical capabilities of Pakistan, not believing that Pakistan can do anything sophisticated as you are insisting, works very well for Pakistan as much of the work slips under the radar unnoticed as prying eyes are not looking because they didn't think Pakistan can actually do that.

Didnt say they can't do anything sophisticated. Even with the Chinese Assistance, I'm not pooh-poohing Pakistan's achievements here. There has to be a significant threshold of science and engineering to even absorb and replicate/scale this sort of technology. Its not childs play. Anything more is just extra credit....but thats somewhat shrouded to the general public.

Starting from nuclear tests of 1998, that was a shock to the world as America didn't know about the ongoing work and was surprised but they did know about Indian preparation for nuclear tests and issued a statement of concerns before Indian pokhran 2 test.

Link to this statement? As far as I know, the CIA was aware since the mid 90s that a test could be done at India's choosing....but was unaware of any specific dates or even year since anti remote sensing/HUMINT/SIGINT steps were taken to the highest degree.

Then Shaheen missile test was a shock,a surprise, and world press was full of articles saying how could a country like Pakistan make a solid fuel mussile of such accuracy as shaheen was observed by satellites and seen to have less than 100m CEP on first test.

Shaheen and earlier Hatf series are also of questionable origin. The M-11 + Nodong transfers when it came to rocketry, potential M-9 transfer and various other rocket technology transfers all put a dampener on the feats when you dig into history. http://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/hatf-3.htm

So media sensationalism and CEP propaganda is just fluffing up a near certain reality of Chinese and North Korean assistance.

Again feel free to disagree.

Then Babur cruise missile test was a shock horror and again world press was buzzing with similar articles of speculations about how possibly a country like Pakistan build a cruise missile.

Here's some counter propaganda: TRISHUL: Babur LACM & Ra’ad ALCM Detailed

So where does the exact truth lie?

About neutron bomb, its a scientific fact that anything below 10kt is effectively a neutron bomb because from a device of such small size and absence of layers of fissile material for absorbtion of high energy neutrons, the neutrons will escape and high energy neutron flux from small under 10 it devices us far higher compared to higher yield devices.

Yah this is true generally.

Now it's upon the designers to be able to convert as much energy of the blast as possible into neutron influx as possible. It can be 10% of the yield ad nrtrons or 60%. If it is difficult, does not mean it is impossible.

You just said below 10kt is effectively a neutron bomb. All one has to do is not put a tamper on it (and increase both its overall mass and blast yield). The difficulty lies in scaling down a design to this level (spherical or otherwise) and being prepared to use relatively much more fissile material per yield....which increases warhead number but takes away from total destructive yield of the arsenal.

About tank armour nullifying neutron effects, the jury is still out and what you are quoting is opinion not hard fact. There are opinions and arguments with scientific proof for both sides . Some say tank armour will totally protect crew,others are not so convinced.

Boronated doping by the USSR effectively stopped further US development and deployment of tactical neutron bombs.

Its not a foolproof magical solution (there will still be a ground zero of high flux and human carnage), but it greatly diminishes neutron transport and mitigates the effects of a neutron bomb considerably....to the point where the lethal radius from neutrons may not be much more than the blast radius, depending on what the armoured side has. Problem for Pakistan is that T-72 armour is by default boron-doped and has other NBC liners as well not to mention ERA. T-90 just adds to this.

So by effectively spreading outs its nuclear material in small yield packages (lowering the amount of total yield because of the scalar inefficiencies by doing this)....Pakistan is taking somewhat of a big gamble that tactical neutron bombs will add to the deterrence. In my opinion, more deterrence is guaranteed by deploying only strategic weapons (of higher yield and yield efficiency), especially against the NFU doctrine of India....where use of TNW is theoretically enough to initiate a larger exchange.

There is the other added problem that these Nasr missiles follow ballistic trajectories and are thus quite susceptible to SAM interception. Cruise missile terrain hugging trajectory would be more effective in the tactical role I believe.....but that brings its own set of compromises too.

About labs and ability to cold test,well a scaled down device of 100 ton yield can be tested anytime as it wont show on siesmic graphs. So the assumption that Pakistan is only relying on labs for low yield weapon design which they won't have is wrong on many levels.

Meaningful data from such subcritical tests are not much more than what can be done on computer simulations. You need very advanced hardware to model and extrapolate a gen 2 linear implosion (which is what is required if you want a TNW of 5kt in the nasr volume constraint).

You can Google laser isotope separation work done by Pakistan and to the shock horror of many,such complicated tech had been mastered by Pakistan and plenty of articles available online in that s regards by sipri , FAS and such.

What does that have to do with a TNW volume/yield discussion?

About non spherical elliptical design of warheads, yes calculations have to be done 3d instead if 2d, again do you really think Pakistan will do it and then shout from rooftops?

Shouting or not shouting doesnt change the fundamental realities of such a simulation. The large gamble Pakistan would have to take to just bump up a TNW from 1kt to 5kt (without physical test validation) is definitely not worth it in a deterrence perspective. Especially with the extra material "wasted" per unit yield and questionable effect on armour in the first place. Add to that the problems of cold testing at this level without a facility like DARHT ( I see no reports of any large enough X-ray accelerator in Pakistan) to give the assured reliability standard. A 5kt design will not produce a 1kt yield if it "fails"...it basically will fizzle. Thats why the guaranteed 1kt design (along the lines of the SADM) is the safe way to go.

Thats basically why I dont buy any claim above 1 kt for nasr....from common sense perspective and the technical perspective. Pakistan is basically better off using its resources in improving its strategic design concepts and getting them ready should another round of testing happen in the future.

As they say proof is in the pudding, and if Pakistan Is parading missiles specially designed for small tactical weapons and knows well that they are facing a drunk with power enemy who might start a nuclear Holocaust in reply to a sub kiloton blast, so chances are that these tactical nuked are worthy of deployment and worth their metal, not the useless junk you are trying to portray.

My issue fundamentally lies with the claim of over 1kt yield for the volume contraints given...especially something of the order of 5kt. Like @The Deterrent said, Pakistan garners the TNW deterrence with the safe somewhat proven 1kt design. I believe 5kt is just a propaganda/scare tactic...but I am not questioning that Pakistan has TNWs of 1kt yield if it has desired to acquire/develop them.

Their actual effectiveness and overall impact on Pakistan's deterrence is another story completely.

@Nilgiri also in your comments you are implying that Pakistan cannot have an advanced design and can only have Manhattan project type basic nuclear weapon design.
May I remind you the weight of both Manhattan project bomb? Both uranium and plutonium typed weighed a hefty 4.5 tons which cannot be mounted on any missiles. Specially not in Pakistan case as our missiles only carry one ton or less.
In an interview Musharraf talked about this matter and clearly said that Pakistan has developed very sophisticated trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons.
Also when nawaz sharif came to the throne this time he had a meeting with Strategic command and a clear press release was thinking issued and it said that Pakistan will continue refining and developing nuclear weapons

Bhai, I only brought up manhattan project when you claimed that US and UK nuclear programs were totally distinct and segregated. That's not true. Their collaboration was intense in WW2 in the basic development of the bomb (among other technologies). If two farmers develop a new type of seed together...and then plant it in their different farms....are we to say they have been totally different because their farms are different?

Nothing to do with Pakistan at all.....outside the fact that every bomb out there traces its "genetic" lineage to Manhattan.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

thats the stupidist thing i have ever heard your forces can only invade from the plains of punjab right ??

we have no one living there and at the time of war places get evacuated and its non of yours or anyone else problem what we do with OUR COUNTRY'S LAND read the bold part again...

2nd what will INDIA do after this ?? Nuke us right than we'll make sure that there is no INDIA if there will no Pakistan and if INDIA doesn't use nuke than we'll still have no morale let down cuz we did it to save our country from the AGGRESSOR's INVADING FORCES. (just for you. invading means enemies forces attacking your land and according to cold start thats what you'll do)

so you don't worry what will the world think SH!T .....

People eager to nuke and destroy their own country. Only Pakistanis can dish out such logic

 

[Bossman]

People eager to nuke and destroy their own country. Only Pakistanis can dish out such logic

80% of India conventional weapons are Pakistan specific. Discuss and agree on conventional arms reduction, there will no need for Pakistan to nuke India.

 

[The Deterrent]

@thesameguy
Brig. Feroz Khan said himself that the Chinese gave Pakistan the CHIC-4 design, but he also clarified that Pakistan had advanced enough already in the technology that it could've made the weapon design on its own. Explains how an 1180kg device of 12 kt (original CHIC-4) was scaled down and improvised into a ~500kg device (Shaheen-2) of ~40 kt (Chagai test, 1998).
His talk regarding his book release "Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb" is available on youtube.