Pakistan has a clear advantage in nuclear capability

[third eye]

The Indian threat is not a phobia, and only Nawaz Sharif bluffs about the bombs to promote himself in politics (that too, against US, not India).

Only the nukes prevent that threat to materialize in 1999, 2002 and 2008.
Nukes have lost significance among the countries who have assured each other the MAD scenario. This is not the case with Pakistan and India. India still thinks it can go into a limited war scenario while Pakistan's military aims to bring the nukes in while keeping the conflict limited.

Here lies the rub.

India has changed tack. It does not (and should not ) need to attack. It loses more by attacking.

Its aims are being met splendidly without physical contact.

While Pak counts the number of nukes it has..

 

[The SC]

lol , India is much more bigger then PAK, do you think India will sit idle and kept that happening , before that it will wipe out Pak from massive vole of nuclear missile , and dead man don't launch missile, India has ABM also , it can protect it cities.

even a tiny seed can become a large tree after sometime.... but think what happen its their is no seed at all

What seed again, a contaminated one to be farmed by a dead man.

Here lies the rub.

India has changed tack. It does not (and should not ) need to attack. It loses more by attacking.

Its aims are being met splendidly without physical contact.

While Pak counts the number of nukes it has..

It is splendid for Pakistan too, since it will count its nukes only in case you intend to attack it, and with no physical contact be it overt or covert, it will advance splendidly faster than India.

 

[third eye]

It is splendid for Pakistan too, since it will count its nukes only in case you intend to attack it, and with no physical contact be it overt or covert, it will advance splendidly faster than India.

Missed the woods for the trees.

Good luck.

 

[arp2041]

Argument of nuclear superiority over India is clearly flawed :

1. Even 1 weapon in today's time is nearly 20 times more powerful than the weapon which wiped out Hiroshima of the map of Japan, don't know what purpose 100+ weapons will serve for Pakistan.

2. If we see this report on how much US will spend on nuclear forces in next ten years (http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/d...s/What We Spend on Nuclear Weapons 092811.pdf), it says that US will spend around $700 billion on nuclear forces in next ten years, roughly calculating the budget for 100+ nuclear weapons + missiles, we get the budget of around 2-3 billion/year for Pakistan (this is in addition to the usual defence budget as budget on nuclear weapons is kept a secret), this is a serious drain on the limited resources of Pakistan, as each new weapon produced doesn't just cost once, but costs constantly over every year thereafter.

3. Even if we think that Pakistan uses a weapon or two in the scenario of war, than how will it cope up with the massive response that India will give & which will be supported by the world since India is just retaliating & not initiating a nuclear conflict.

 

[The Deterrent]

Argument of nuclear superiority over India is clearly flawed :

1. Even 1 weapon in today's time is nearly 20 times more powerful than the weapon which wiped out Hiroshima of the map of Japan, don't know what purpose 100+ weapons will serve for Pakistan.

2. If we see this report on how much US will spend on nuclear forces in next ten years (http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/d...s/What We Spend on Nuclear Weapons 092811.pdf), it says that US will spend around $700 billion on nuclear forces in next ten years, roughly calculating the budget for 100+ nuclear weapons + missiles, we get the budget of around 2-3 billion/year for Pakistan (this is in addition to the usual defence budget as budget on nuclear weapons is kept a secret), this is a serious drain on the limited resources of Pakistan, as each new weapon produced doesn't just cost once, but costs constantly over every year thereafter.

3. Even if we think that Pakistan uses a weapon or two in the scenario of war, than how will it cope up with the massive response that India will give & which will be supported by the world since India is just retaliating & not initiating a nuclear conflict.

On the other hand, your arguments seem flawed too:

1. In point 2, you gave the example of US's nuclear forces. Tell me, what purpose do 5000+ nuclear warheads serve the United States?
The answer is simple. It has to be assured that any leg of the triad can completely annihilate the enemy, even after suffering a nuclear strike. So, more nukes and reliable delivery systems are required for a second strike.

2. You cannot compare Pakistan's nuclear weapons to those of United State's. US Nuclear arsenal is much more complex and sophisticated, and its large number requires more funds for maintenance.

3. One or two? You are massively under-estimating Pakistan's Nuclear Forces. Any Nuclear first strike attempt requires the pre-emptive destruction of enemy's nuclear assets. Thats the whole point of a first strike i.e. to remove the enemy's capability of a nuclear response.

 

[arp2041]

On the other hand, your arguments seem flawed too:

1. In point 2, you gave the example of US's nuclear forces. Tell me, what purpose do 5000+ nuclear warheads serve the United States?
The answer is simple. It has to be assured that any leg of the triad can completely annihilate the enemy, even after suffering a nuclear strike. So, more nukes and reliable delivery systems are required for a second strike.

2. You cannot compare Pakistan's nuclear weapons to those of United State's. US Nuclear arsenal is much more complex and sophisticated, and its large number requires more funds for maintenance.

3. One or two? You are massively under-estimating Pakistan's Nuclear Forces. Any Nuclear first strike attempt requires the pre-emptive destruction of enemy's nuclear assets. Thats the whole point of a first strike i.e. to remove the enemy's capability of a nuclear response.

Thanks for rebutting my points, now i would be in a better position to make my points:

1. why are u comparing urself with US nuclear forces of 5000+, Pakistan is not US, US has the fear of the enemies which can strike her first (Russia & China) but not Pakistan, India has already stated that there will be no first use of nuclear weapons, so than what's the purpose of more & more nukes.

2. Ok, i m not comparing the budget of US with Pak (prob is we only knows how much US spends, no other country disclose that figures), so in ur opinion, how much Pakistan spends? (having 100+ weapons & 100s of nuclear capable missile) & mind u making a nuclear weapon is not a one time cost but it also costs for keeping it safe, so one nuclear weapon costs a country till the weapon is actually used.

3. This is most interesting, so are u saying that in a war situation, Pakistan will use all it's 100+ nuke weapons & India & the world as a whole will be doing nothing, even if u dismantle all our ground & air assets for nuke strike how will u overcome the SSBN's which India is building (i know it is not yet operational but will be a capable second strike platform in few years to come) + what will Pakistan do if say our nuke weapons are as far as Andamans, Pakistan has no missile to strike Andamans + what about our BMDs which will come up in some years.

 

[The Deterrent]

Thanks for rebutting my points, now i would be in a better position to make my points:

1. why are u comparing urself with US nuclear forces of 5000+, Pakistan is not US, US has the fear of the enemies which can strike her first (Russia & China) but not Pakistan, India has already stated that there will be no first use of nuclear weapons, so than what's the purpose of more & more nukes.

2. Ok, i m not comparing the budget of US with Pak (prob is we only knows how much US spends, no other country disclose that figures), so in ur opinion, how much Pakistan spends? (having 100+ weapons & 100s of nuclear capable missile) & mind u making a nuclear weapon is not a one time cost but it also costs for keeping it safe, so one nuclear weapon costs a country till the weapon is actually used.

3. This is most interesting, so are u saying that in a war situation, Pakistan will use all it's 100+ nuke weapons & India & the world as a whole will be doing nothing, even if u dismantle all our ground & air assets for nuke strike how will u overcome the SSBN's which India is building (i know it is not yet operational but will be a capable second strike platform in few years to come) + what will Pakistan do if say our nuke weapons are as far as Andamans, Pakistan has no missile to strike Andamans + what about our BMDs which will come up in some years.

You are welcome.

1. Agreed, India has claimed no-first strike policy. The problem is countries can change policy, its all about being prepared for the worst case scenario. Furthermore, like India, Pakistan has to cater for possible future threats too.

2. I don't know. But yes, they cost a lot. In a broader aspect, the same nukes prevent an even more destructive conventional war.

3. I didn't say India cannot do anything. I merely described the First Strike Capability, which is focused on crippling the enemy's nuclear forces.
Yes, after India inducts SSBNs, they will obtain a true second-strike capability. Strange it is, that on one hand you say India will induct more potent systems in the future, but do not think that Pakistan will do the same in future...
Indian BMD is far from being a successful one. It may prevent an unauthorized launch, but doesn't stands a chance against a volley of Pakistan's Nuclear Delivery Systems.

 

[Agent X]

"If all the Muslims in Pakistan are killed, there will still be plenty of Muslims left all over the Globe but if all the Hindus in India are eliminated, that will be virtually the end of the Hindus race, let us not finish off all the Muslims in Pakistan and all the Hindus in the world." !!!

I always thought arab is a powerful but a dumb race. never expected this much smart move by them. they will use ex hindus to finish hinduism. enjoying the show safley in the desert at same time.

btw by going fantastic logic of mr. zia to make sure there won't be any headach of terrorism left for the world after the nuclear war indians should fire some missiles to arebia as well. what u say???

 

[angeldude13]

As some military historians once concluded, neither country needs dozen of war heads, attacks on
"If all the Muslims in Pakistan are killed, there will still be plenty of Muslims left all over the Globe but if all the Hindus in India are eliminated, that will be virtually the end of the Hindus race, let us not finish off all the Muslims in Pakistan and all the Hindus in the world." !!!

1.you are slightly wrong here.let me correct you.nepal is a hindu majority country and also fiji(yeah that cute island nation) has 33% hindu population.keeping in mind that there are few million indians in america,few in canada and few millions in europe or maybe few hundred thousands.
so your assumptions about hindu being wipe out or virtually wipe out is wrong but iam sure there will be no india and pakistan after that nuke nuke war.
now lets see it with pakistan's perspective.i've seen how punjabi's love there culture and they love to brag everything from there mangoes to there kudiyan into a debate.it shows how much you people love your country and your culture.so you are claiming that there will be muslims left but there won't be no punjabi muslims,sindhi muslims,balochi muslims and pashtoni muslims.
you can lie to yourself that you are happy to sacrifice pakistan but i can clearly see that you aren't.so your bluff is of no use.
you people love your country and i know you won't sacrifice it for the sake of islam or arab people.

 

[arp2041]

You are welcome.

1. Agreed, India has claimed no-first strike policy. The problem is countries can change policy, its all about being prepared for the worst case scenario. Furthermore, like India, Pakistan has to cater for possible future threats too.

2. I don't know. But yes, they cost a lot. In a broader aspect, the same nukes prevent an even more destructive conventional war.

3. I didn't say India cannot do anything. I merely described the First Strike Capability, which is focused on crippling the enemy's nuclear forces.
Yes, after India inducts SSBNs, they will obtain a true second-strike capability. Strange it is, that on one hand you say India will induct more potent systems in the future, but do not think that Pakistan will do the same in future...
Indian BMD is far from being a successful one. It may prevent an unauthorized launch, but doesn't stands a chance against a volley of Pakistan's Nuclear Delivery Systems.

I m sure that u'll agree with me that Pakistan will not have (atleast) SSBN capability for a decade or so + as far as Indian BMD systems are concerned though they are not yet successful but atleast taking a toll on the budget of Pakistan as now the Pak strategic forces are concentrating more on cruise missiles & BMD countermeasures.

 

[joekrish]

This thread is making my head spin.

 

[The Deterrent]

I m sure that u'll agree with me that Pakistan will not have (atleast) SSBN capability for a decade or so + as far as Indian BMD systems are concerned though they are not yet successful but atleast taking a toll on the budget of Pakistan as now the Pak strategic forces are concentrating more on cruise missiles & BMD countermeasures.

I was responding to your statement that Pakistan yet cannot strike all of India.
Yes, Pakistan cannot have SSBNs for a couple of years, but Pakistan is developing Babur SLCM to be deployed on the AIP-equipped Agosta-90Bs. This will give Pakistan a satisfactory second-strike capability.
Agreed, but you shouldn't expect a break in the development of any weapons program. It has to be modernized. Cruise Missiles and MIRVs are the newer dimensions which Pakistan is exploring.

Nevertheless, Nuclear Exchange is a doomsday scenario, and there aren't any winners. Having 20 or 30 more nukes isn't a thing to be proud of. But the credible (nuclear) deterrence is the only thing preventing another Indo-Pak war.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

I was responding to your statement that Pakistan yet cannot strike all of India.
Yes, Pakistan cannot have SSBNs for a couple of years, but Pakistan is developing Babur SLCM to be deployed on the AIP-equipped Agosta-90Bs. This will give Pakistan a satisfactory second-strike capability.
Agreed, but you shouldn't expect a break in the development of any weapons program. It has to be modernized. Cruise Missiles and MIRVs are the newer dimensions which Pakistan is exploring.

Nevertheless, Nuclear Exchange is a doomsday scenario, and there aren't any winners. Having 20 or 30 more nukes isn't a thing to be proud of. But the credible (nuclear) deterrence is the only thing preventing another Indo-Pak war.

y the time PAK made all thise , India already had tested ABM system in place for all class of missiles.

 

[Matrixx]

I can say....India has a clear advantage in economy....any ways...it depends on your priorities....where you wanna excel....

Good luck ...hope some day you can use your nuclear capabilities....unless it will be most expensive garbage....

 

[The SC]

@arp2041

1. why are u comparing urself with US nuclear forces of 5000+, Pakistan is not US, US has the fear of the enemies which can strike her first (Russia & China) but not Pakistan, India has already stated that there will be no first use of nuclear weapons, so than what's the purpose of more & more nukes.

But India had also promised Canada not to use its CANDU reactor for Nuclear weapons developments.
So, everyone and mostly Pakistan Know the value of your "Statements" of no first use...