For some people amreeca is god... and we are slaves...
I call these people mental slaves of west
Pakistan has more nuclear warheads than India: report
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
For some people amreeca is god... and we are slaves...
I call these people mental slaves of west
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,583
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Actually US remains the only country to have used the atomic bomb.
So if you intend to Show These arounds than Russia and America can make a small dent in the Ozone with a nuclear war.
For Pakistan its not the numbers that matter. Its a deterrence program. An insurance policy against a paranoid neighbour.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
@Mrc
Read this article to understand complications of estimations: http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...er-estimates-of-the-khushab-nuclear-reactors/
Khushab TPP has gross efficiency of 31.25%
Brigadier Naeem Salik questioned the validity of prevalent estimations regarding expansion of Pakistani nuclear arsenal over time in his article, and you need to take his revelations seriously. There are so many factors to consider while assessing total plutonium enrichment output and how much of it is made available for development of nuclear weapons on a yearly basis. Design of a nuclear weapon also count.
My estimation might be low but only an insider is in the position to confirm or deny it.
Read this article to understand complications of estimations: http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...er-estimates-of-the-khushab-nuclear-reactors/
Khushab TPP has gross efficiency of 31.25%
Brigadier Naeem Salik questioned the validity of prevalent estimations regarding expansion of Pakistani nuclear arsenal over time in his article, and you need to take his revelations seriously. There are so many factors to consider while assessing total plutonium enrichment output and how much of it is made available for development of nuclear weapons on a yearly basis. Design of a nuclear weapon also count.
My estimation might be low but only an insider is in the position to confirm or deny it.
Last edited:
Indian Hindu mentality is such that they obey numbers in all aspect of their lives, literally!!
150 nuclear warheads is not enough. Pakistan needs to build and maintain at least 300-600 nuclear warheads. Figure out some number related with Hindu perception of death and destruction and maintain a stockpile of nuclear warheads in the multiple of that number. As the numbers of Pakistani nuclear warheads go up, the psychological scars in Indian minds will go deeper and deeper.
This idea of higher numbers is purely for psychological reasons.
150 nuclear warheads is not enough. Pakistan needs to build and maintain at least 300-600 nuclear warheads. Figure out some number related with Hindu perception of death and destruction and maintain a stockpile of nuclear warheads in the multiple of that number. As the numbers of Pakistani nuclear warheads go up, the psychological scars in Indian minds will go deeper and deeper.
This idea of higher numbers is purely for psychological reasons.
I need a cement brick to hit my head in
Khushab TPP (AKA thermal power plant ) is a coal fired thermal power plant not a nuclear facility......
31.25 efficiency is of khushab TPP.. thermal power plant.... coal based thermal power plant... not a nuclear plant....
I can spell any word you don't understand in simple english urdu hindi or any other language u like
From your link
the Khushab TPP is a “50.00 MW Coal Fired Plant, where this value is the electrical generation from two units”6 It has a reported gross efficiency of 31.25 percent. 7
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
And what did I mention in my post? Playing with semantics now?
I cited that article to make you understand 'complications' of estimations, nothing else. Nevertheless, Pakistani power plants (and reactors) are not very efficient in practice; this much was pointed out by Brigadier Naeem Salik in his article.
If you can provide authentic figure of total plutonium enrichment output in Khushab and respective operational capacities of its 4 nuclear reactors, please do. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
ESTIMATIONS are ESTIMATIONS! Do not take them at face value, period. This was the argument of Brigadier Naeem Salik. You dumb good for nothing....
Ache bale bande ka temper loose ho jaataa hai tumhare saat behass karke.
Last edited:
If u don't have capacity.... don't go into very complicated scientific papers....
From link u posted (thanks for the link )
Khushab 1 is 50 MW
Khushab 2 is 60
Khushab 3 80
Khushab 4 is 100 plus...
These estimates are given in ranges comparing cooling towers of publically available data of khushab termal power unit (31.25 efficiency coal powered)...
Excluded from estimates are the additional smaller cooling towers in nuke plants ....plus all 4 main cooling towers are different and TPP tower is different... this likely represents in accurate estimate and that estimate of power is on lower side
They also note that type of material used can effect estimation
They also note more efficient fuel can give higher power
What's your education?? I bet you sell mobile covers in your GOD country
????? Still want to argue on this????
Khushab likely has capacity of 300 mw. Potentially giving toy 30 war heads per year ..
No estimate exists for kahuta
Given breakdowns ... and other issues ... I would easily put yearly combined capacity at 30 warheads...(50% allowance for breakdowns)
And pak has different civil programs... all this fissile material is kept separate from civil programme and never two are mixed ... unlike india
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I have the capacity to understand and read scientific papers. You misread my statements and intended message, and trying to infuriate me unfortunately.
What is my message all along? That estimations about the rate of expansion of Pakistani nuclear weapons over time, are suspect (courtesy of Brigadier Naeem Salik).
One must realize the difference between 'operational capacity' and 'operational efficiency' of each Khushab nuclear reactor; 'operational efficiency' of each reactor is realistically in the (40 - 50)% range as pointed out by Brigadier Naeem, or even lower. Therefore, estimation of cumulative plutonium production of the Khushab nuclear complex shall be lowered accordingly. However, exact composition of centrifuges is unclear (P2 or P3 or both?) which also influence plutonium production output. Design-related efficiency of nuclear weapons is also unclear on top (how many kg of plutonium each nuclear warhead is consuming?). Additionally, is the entirety of plutonium production (per year) being transferred to nuclear scientists to develop nuclear weapons (per year)? Therefore, margin of error in an estimation is huge.
I hope that my position is clear to you with the aforementioned.
I do not give a shit about "potentially."
Neither should you.
Last edited:
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
For fun, I will give it a try.
Estimated operational capacity for each:-
Khushab 1 = 50 MW
Khushab 2 = 60 MW
Khushab 3 = 80 MW
Khushab 4 = 100 MW
Assuming 40% operational efficiency for each:-
Khushab 1 = 20 MW
Khushab 2 = 24 MW
Khushab 3 = 32 MW
Khushab 4 = 40 MW
Assuming 50 MW = 7 Kg plutonium production ratio at 40% operational efficiency per year (Courtesy Brigadier Naeem Salik):-
Khushab 1 = 2.8 kg
Khushab 2 = 3.36 kg
Khushab 3 = 4.48 kg
Khushab 4 = 5.6 kg
Cumulative plutonium production output of Khushab nuclear complex on annual basis = 16.24 kg
Assuming 6 kg plutonium requirement for building a bomb:-
16.24 kg of plutonium will create capacity for development of 2 nuclear warheads per year.
BHarwana
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 24,824
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
It makes me laugh sometimes when they say that Pakistan has this many nukes or war heads. Lol. When Pakistan did the first nuclear test it came out of the blue no new what was coming. Every story came after the test none came before so all organisations knew nothing. Regarding Khushab nuclear plant no one knows it's capacity because there are no lose ends to it. It is so massive that you really have to admire what Pakistan is doing there. It's one corner touches chowk girote other touches adhi kot and the other touches river jhelum in between there are so many buildings. You cannot tell what is going on there. You cannot even tell how much is above and how much of the plant is underground so how are they assessing any thing
You think Pakistan only has khushab plant? Have you ever seen what they are doing at chashma? Sorry man no one can tell if Pakistan is enriching or not. Pakistan has 120 or 180 is a state secrete Sipri is just guessing
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
True, but much have changed since. For reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/advances-in-monitoring-nuclear/
Actually, satellites have made it possible to observe 'activities of interest' on a 24/7 basis which was impractical with airborne assets. It is possible for relevant observers to figure out 'operational capacity' of any nuclear complex due to their affinity with its operational mechanisms. However, they tend to highlight operational capacity of a 'nuclear facility' and draw conclusions from it which is problematic as pointed out by Brigadier Naeem Salik in his article (operational capacity versus operational efficiency and the exact quantity of enriched uranium and/or plutonium that is provided to scientists to develop nuclear weapons on annual basis). Pakistan also have its share of formal dealings with IAEA much like other countries:-
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/signing-of-a-safeguards-agreement-with-pakistan
https://www.iaea.org/taxonomy/term/369
Such interactions feature disclosure of relevant bits of information to IAEA officials as per their request. Pakistan desire to expand its nuclear program for 'civil purpose' which won't be possible without cooperation with IAEA.
Detecting and characterizing a nuclear facility can be done in several ways: with satellite surveillance; utilizing technologies that can detect radiation, heat concentrations, sound or vibrations associated with operating nuclear facilities; or by human intelligence (agents or informants). One method that is used by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is environmental sampling, that is, collecting samples of soil, air, water, vegetation or smears at the site of inspection and measure the isotopic composition between the uranium isotope U-235 (fissile material) and the isotope U-238 (non-fissionable material). In its natural form, the composition would be about 0.7:99.3. If enrichment has taken place the composition would have a relatively higher concentration of U-235. In general, the less enrichment that goes on (both in scale and time), the lesser the chances of detection. Therefore, the size of the facility is crucial in a covert enrichment operation, and the smaller the better. In order to miniaturize the covert facility, one should aim for installing as few centrifuges as possible. In order to reduce the number of enriching centrifuges to a minimum, one should seek to increase the centrifuge quality, that is, improve their effectiveness when it comes to separating the isotope U-235 from U-238. The Iranian centrifuge type called IR-2m is considered to be about three to five times more effective than the IR-1. Iran could limit the number of centrifuges necessary—and thus the size of the facility—by only installing the IR-2m in a covert facility.
Dirty details here: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-find-hidden-nuclear-facility-9392
The Economist also feature a related publication: http://media.economist.com/news/tec...ct-covert-nuclear-weapons-are-being-developed
---
Pentagon is in the position to figure out intimate details of Pakistani nuclear weapons program through various methods on its own which are not openly advertised in the public domain. What they know about our nuclear weapons program, they will not disclose to the public (confidentiality factor is important).
The intricacies of a nuclear weapons program are not figured out in a day or two; years of non-stop surveillance does the trick and Pentagon isn't lacking in this respect. If a particular method of detection fails to deliver, chances are that another method will do the trick. Even the most concealed nuclear facility cannot escape detection for indefinite period as apparent from this operation: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/...l-destroyed-syria-s-nuclear-reactor-1.5914407
---
You are correct in pointing out that the exact amount of nuclear weapons of Pakistan is not clear in the public domain. Unless sources like SIPRI are able to draw relevant information from the archives of Pentagon (unlikely), they run the risk of exaggerating the pace of Pakistani's nuclear weapons program.
There is a pattern to malign Pakistani nuclear weapons program:-
"Pakistan’s nuclear program has been stereotyped since its inception. It was first characterized as the so-called Islamic bomb. Then, after 9/11, it was dubbed the most insecure and vulnerable arsenal, just waiting to fall into the wrong hands. In the past few years, it has been commonly described as the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world." - Brigadier Naeem Salik
An excellent read by any measure: https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/30/pakistan-s-nuclear-force-structure-in-2025-pub-63912
HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
When our fast breeder reactor program is complete, we shall have Nuclear material to build 100+ bomb every year just from fast breeder program. We have abundance of deuterium and tritium available with us. We just need few grams for one H bomb.
Similar threads
