Pakistan has 90 Nuclear Warheads (2009) according to UK media

[Forrest Griffin]

The world will never be free of nukes. If some rogue nation or terrorist group comes into posession of nukes and nobody else has them, they could hold the world hostage.

 

[Nahraf]

The world will never be free of nukes. If some rogue nation or terrorist group comes into posession of nukes and nobody else has them, they could hold the world hostage.

Do you realise that these are all code words in Zionist media for Muslims. True victory is not to defeat your enemy but to make him think like yourself.

 

[Avatar]

India has the capacity to create the world's 3rd largest nuclear arsenal after Russia and US. There are many nuclear facilities in India not covered in the N.Deal. We never know how many nukes we really have ...but we do know that they are more than enough to scorch entire countries.
I can give credible links if required.

 

[deckingraj]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would you mind sharing those links??? As far as i know our nuclear policy clearly says that we should have minimum deterrant...In other words less than 100 will do the trick...so i would be surprised if we need to go beyond that....What is more important is the ability to survive the first attack....If you have succesful triad in operation then there is no need to go beyond 100....

 

[graphican]

Hi
Well may be this is what these people know but Pakistan has a very hefty number of nukes, sorry can't provide any link as such information is not on internet but you can figure it out yourself by going through certain facts which are as follow
1.In 2003, the U.S. Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimated that Pakistan possessed between 35 and 95 nuclear warheads. that is of 2003
2.In late 2006, the Institute for Science and International Security released intelligence reports and imagery showing the construction of a new plutonium reactor at the Khushab nuclear site. The reactor is deemed to be large enough to produce enough plutonium to facilitate the creation of as many as "40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.

so this is just an example of want normal people know, the actual numbers are not available to public however since one of my teachers worked with the concerned ministry so i was told that Pakistan has fairly a large number of Nukes, that was the main reason India did not attack after Mumbai Attacks

Having capacity to produce 40-50 weapons doesn't mean we would be producing this number every year. It is one heck of expensive weapon and even though we have capacity, it is not necessarily utilized up to its fullest. When a country has 100 weapons, it would only produce more when he knows 100 are not enough for the deterrence and in my opinion, 50 would have been enough. Remember what 2 nuclear weapons did with Japan. Just imagine what would 20 do to India and we have them 4.5 times more weapons than this number.

You guys thought why do Russia has more weapons than USA when USA is richer and has more resources to produce more? There is a simple reason which also holds true for the Pakistan/India scenario. The country who feels more insecure will have more such weapons. I am not surprised neither I would be if Pakistan would possess 2 times more weapons than India does. We are small country and we have bigger threat to face and defeat, so we need to have more of those weapons even when India is not having them in large numbers.

 

[deckingraj]

Having capacity to produce 40-50 weapons doesn't mean we would be producing this number every year. It is one heck of expensive weapon and even though we have capacity, it is not necessarily utilized up to its fullest. When a country has 100 weapons, it would only produce more when he knows 100 are not enough for the deterrence and in my opinion, 50 would have been enough. Remember what 2 nuclear weapons did with Japan. Just imagine what would 20 do to India and we have them 4.5 times more weapons than this number..

^^^^^^^^^^
I agree...I don't think you need 1000 nukes to take care of India...Honestly i don't see any proud statement in saying that India has more nukes that pak or vice versa...All i know is that both have enough to ensure the opposite side know that there will be enough damage should it dare to do the unthinkable..

You guys thought why do Russia has more weapons than USA when USA is richer and has more resources to produce more? There is a simple reason which also holds true for the Pakistan/India scenario. The country who feels more insecure will have more such weapons. I am not surprised neither I would be if Pakistan would possess 2 times more weapons than India does. We are small country and we have bigger threat to face and defeat, so we need to have more of those weapons even when India is not having them in large numbers.

I don't agree...You don't need more numbers just because you are insecure...You need more numbers if you think that your adversary first strike can cripple you in such a way that you would loose all these weapons in one go...Thus if unthinkable occurs you should still be left with enough to ensure damage to adversary is beyond repair......In other words if you have a TRIAD(land, underground, nuclear submarine) then why would you like to put money on weapons which are supposed to used only when your adversary is on suicide mission??? Creating a nuclear bomb and then mainting it involves lot of money...I would rather spend that amount on improving my conventional weapons rather than getting a feel good factor of having more nukes than my adversary....

In short there is no point in nuking a city that has already been nuked....

 

[Nahraf]

[BThe country who feels more insecure will have more such weapons. I am not surprised neither I would be if Pakistan would possess 2 times more weapons than India does. We are small country and we have bigger threat to face and defeat, so we need to have more of those weapons even when India is not having them in large numbers.

Exactly. As Pakistan continues to fall behind in conventional weapons more it relies on its nuclear arsenal.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Do you realise that these are all code words in Zionist media for Muslims. True victory is not to defeat your enemy but to make him think like yourself.

grow up....

 

[deckingraj]

Exactly. As Pakistan continues to fall behind in conventional weapons more it relies on its nuclear arsenal.

Negative....You cannot rely on nuclear weapons alone because they cannot be used under ordinary circumstance(and you know why..don't you)...

We learned this the hardway when your army occupied our peaks in Kargil....Both India and Pakistan were nuclear nations at that time....In other words if India chose to have a limited conflict with you where she ensures that your nuclear threshold i not reached how would you counter that attack if you don't have parity in conventional weapons??? Unfortunate but truth there is no other end to Arm's race but peace....

on other hand for smaller economy like Pakistan it is a double edge sword...Not only they need to keep investing in nukes but also they need to have a minimum deterance as far as conventional weapons goes.....Just look at the inventory of IAF and the expected inventory by 2015-2020....You got to invest lot of money irrespective of the fact that you have 100, 500 or 1000 nukes...

 

[deckingraj]

If major cities get destroyed, radio active spread on hundreds of miles of area, then what would be left for the country to grow on again ??

Each country would go to stone age.

It will take decades after cities will be able to be populated again and other stuff. So what else are you gonna call it. MAD doesn't means each village or home is to be destroyed, major cities gone, industrial hubs gone, agricultural lands left un-cultivatable, what left to be done for MAD.

Care to explain why US/Russia have nukes in 1000's when 100 can do the job??? MAD is mutually assused distruction which means not a single thing is left ...You are gone forever....India-Pak and China have minimal deterrance doctorine(atleast on papers) which means they want to inflict unacceptable damage to their adversary...However each and everything is not destroyed....Life is still there and one can bounce back in next 2-3 decades or so......Good enough deterance and falls well for poor developing economies....

 

[karan.1970]

If major cities get destroyed, radio active spread on hundreds of miles of area, then what would be left for the country to grow on again ??

Each country would go to stone age.

It will take decades after cities will be able to be populated again and other stuff. So what else are you gonna call it. MAD doesn't means each village or home is to be destroyed, major cities gone, industrial hubs gone, agricultural lands left un-cultivatable, what left to be done for MAD.

Lots of assumptions here.. You are assuming that all the warheads will be fired, all of them will fly true.. none of them will be intercepted via ABMs or destroyed in 1st strike, there wont be any international pressure after the 1st slavo..Also, initially the targets will be military installations or strategic points... I remember reading somewhere on this forum only about an average of 10-15 cities getting knocked off with 12-14 million deaths in South Asia..

At the end of the day, you are talking of writing off 3-4 decades and thats about it... India and Pakistan today in terms of nuclear arsenal are in a stage where they can blackmail each other or the world...MAD, .. not even close...

Its not for nothing that a USA and Russia carry 10000+ nuclear warheads.. That's what's MAD...

 

[deckingraj]

There wont be any international pressure after the 1st slavo..Also, initially the targets will be military installations or strategic points....

I agree with rest of your post...However Karan i do not think that there would be anything left to fire by the attacker(whoever chose to have the first go)...

If i have to nuke Pakistan i will ensure that i use all of my weapons in one go as i very well know that they will retaliate with full force...I will not wait for them to attack my military installations(the way i did) and then go after their cities(who knows i will not get that chance)...I will just use all my weapons in one go and then pray that i manage to knock off their capabilty to strike back....

 

[graphican]

^^^^^^^^^^
I agree...I don't think you need 1000 nukes to take care of India...Honestly i don't see any proud statement in saying that India has more nukes that pak or vice versa...All i know is that both have enough to ensure the opposite side know that there will be enough damage should it dare to do the unthinkable..



I don't agree...You don't need more numbers just because you are insecure...You need more numbers if you think that your adversary first strike can cripple you in such a way that you would loose all these weapons in one go...Thus if unthinkable occurs you should still be left with enough to ensure damage to adversary is beyond repair......In other words if you have a TRIAD(land, underground, nuclear submarine) then why would you like to put money on weapons which are supposed to used only when your adversary is on suicide mission??? Creating a nuclear bomb and then mainting it involves lot of money...I would rather spend that amount on improving my conventional weapons rather than getting a feel good factor of having more nukes than my adversary....

In short there is no point in nuking a city that has already been nuked....

In terms of Area, Russia is the largest country of the world and therefore, has low nuclear storage density as compared to United States. (by nuclear storage density, I mean number of weapons stored in one 1 kilometer) If 100 bombs are dropped on Russia, analytically, those 100 bombs will neutralize less stored atomic bombs in comparison to the number that will be destroyed in America as the same result. Russia has lot more chance to have more of its nuclear weapons intact as compared to United States. Therefore perspective of survivability is in the favor of Russia and not USA. But Russia still has more nuclear weapons and this aspect suggests there must be some other reason of building such large number of weapons.

I think you missed a feeling that some of our members here in PDF have been conveying when they see India is piling up more and more weapons and the gap of military power is increasing between India and Pakistan. Some of our members have been suggesting to have more Missiles and more nuclear weapons as a counter measure. Sounds stupid at times but this is one possibility to secure ourself from the possible Indian aggression. If Pakistan has 2times more nuclear weapons than India, India would definitely think multiple times before striking Pakistan because it would know the blow-back will be unbearable for it, plus we know we would need some 50 weapons to destroy Indian cities and we have to make sure at least 50 weapons would stay with Pakistan even if India strikes first. I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan would make and keep 200 weapons with that aspect in view.

 

[graphican]

Negative....You cannot rely on nuclear weapons alone because they cannot be used under ordinary circumstance(and you know why..don't you)...

We learned this the hardway when your army occupied our peaks in Kargil....Both India and Pakistan were nuclear nations at that time....In other words if India chose to have a limited conflict with you where she ensures that your nuclear threshold i not reached how would you counter that attack if you don't have parity in conventional weapons??? Unfortunate but truth there is no other end to Arm's race but peace....

on other hand for smaller economy like Pakistan it is a double edge sword...Not only they need to keep investing in nukes but also they need to have a minimum deterance as far as conventional weapons goes.....Just look at the inventory of IAF and the expected inventory by 2015-2020....You got to invest lot of money irrespective of the fact that you have 100, 500 or 1000 nukes...

Where this increasing gap in conventional weapons give India an edge, the same aspect increases the possibility of using Nuclear Weapons from our side. When you know your opponent has a gun and he is weak at muscles, he is more likely to use his gun instead of fighting bare handed if you indulge in a fight with him. This aspect keeps India away from indulging into a conventional war which on paper would be won by India. I think India only stopped from crossing the border (although it made up its mind at least 3 times in the past decade) considering the fact that Pakistan will have to use its Nuclear Weapons sooner on India than India would have to use them on us. When Pakistan would know we are not able to hold war for another day, we would rather turn the lights off for India before it goes off for ourself.

 

[Windjammer]

The likes of US and Russia have the ability to destroy the world several times over, when talking of individuals like India Pakistan, a doomsday scenario was painted to the effect that each country wouldn't require doesn't of weapons to wipe out the other. With the densely populated cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkota, Chenai, Banglore and on the other side Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Peshawar taking the brunt of the critical mass, with the industry, infrastructure and utilities destroyed, the contamination spreading to the pockets of survivors dotted here and there, even their survival seems a far fetched reality let alone them bouncing back in a couple of decades.