Pakistan needs more nukes?

[Viper0011.]

Shalom to you too, it is gratifying to have Americans in PDF who are interesting in Pakistan.

However, while the perception of Israel as a nuclear weapons state is mainly a deterrence Pakistan declared itself as a nuclear weapons state and uses it nuclear capabilities as an umbrella to launch asymmetric war against India: from 1989 and until 26/11. Pakistan's bold only stregthened: at the beginning the terror attacks concentrated against India's presence in Kashmir under the pretext of a freedom struggle. When this terror campaign failed and India still did not show any sign of appeasement the Pakistan Army launched the Kargil Operation in 1999 by using the nuclear umbrella which was presented only a year ago (in the nuclear tests of May 1998).

After a limited military operation failed, Pakistan turned into terror attacks against important targets inside India (and not just in Kashmir) - the Parliament house in December 2001 and the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 (one of three of such attacks).

On the contrary, Israel have an opaque nuclear policy - it never used the nuclear dimension to gain the advantage in the battlefield. Although Israel was perceived as a nuclear weapons country in 1973 that did not stop both Egypt and Syria to launch a full scale war against Israel.

Moreover, Pakistan is intentionally using its nuclear capabilities in an offensive way - first, as mentioned, to launch terror attacks against India; second, to assist other rogue countries (Iran, North Korea) to develop nuclear weapons and to destabilise current world order; and third, to blackmail the US for more military and economic assistance if the US does not want that the current regime will fall and Pakistan's nuclear bombs will be at the hand of extreme Islamic regime.

As you can see, the psych of the two countries is totally opposite: while Israel maintain an opaque nuclear policy and tried several times to end the conflict with its neighbors and the Palestinians by offering very generous compromises, Pakistan uses its nuclear deterrent to launch terror attacks, to blackmail the US, and to assist radical regimes to threaten peaceful countries. While Israel did its best to achieve some settlement in its region, Pakistan aspire to change completely the balance of power in South Asia and if necessary then to threaten international security.

As for the issue of this thread, I am quite puzzled and amazed by Pakistan aspirations to develop their strategic capabilities: dozens of nuclear reactors, a second nuclear strike, ICBM's, tactical nuclear weapons, and perhaps an hydrogen bomb. This efforts require substantial funds and resources which Pakistan does not have: it is already depends on external economic assistance.

Regardless of the danger of Pakistan's nuclear development to international security, this ambitious effort is more than the minimum nuclear deterrence Pakistan needs against India and which proved itself in the past.

Alright man. I am about 75% positive you are not an Israeli. Just by the nature of your responses. However, I could be wrong or may be American jews have more open insight into things than what they have in Israel. A lot of your arguments are actually flawed and biased towards India.

Now let's start with some reality. You can't clap with one hand. It takes two to do so. I was actually looking at a neutral debate but that's not going to happen after seeing your biased post...

1) Israel's 'deterrence' is because is has probably the fourth best air force in the world. Way ahead of your neighbors or 'enemies' so to speak. How many other air forces can provide about 400 - 500 top line state of the art fighter jets and ranges in minutes? You can conventionally overwhelm your neighbors so why include NW's in the picture? Everyone knows they are there...
Give this to the Pakistanis and you'll see the same thing. NW's will become a back end deterrence as conventionally it'll match the Indians.

2) You were quick to point out all attacks in the Indian history. That tells me you are either an Indian living in Israel or just using Israel's flag. I am opposed to all terror attacks anywhere in the world.
However, define terror attacks for me? Attacks on Indian parliament or Tag hotel are terror attacks....I get that and understand. How about the Christians, Muslims whose houses were burned down when they were sleeping inside....the whole villages were burnt down. It's been a ritual in certain Indian states by fundamental hidus. How come no one ever talks about those?
How about raping of Kashmiri women and girls? open air killing of innocent males (hundreds of thousands of them) that weren't even carrying weapons....? How come no one talks about those as terror attacks?
How about when Israeli tanks shell back when people throw stones at them? Stonnes vs. 120 mm shell in the shape of rain....that's not terror attack to you bro? How about IDF's sound barrier crossing / practices at low altitudes in the Palestinian territory that's resulted in tons of def kids? That's not terror to you? If you have half the humanity I think you do, then you should understand terror against civilians is a terror. It doesn't change for certain countries or certain religions!
So EVERY country with power in my view is a terrorist to some degree. Look at the examples I gave you. There is no such thing as JUST poor Pakistan trying to expand terror. How about the 6000 + bombings and unlimited violence within Pakistan backed up by Indian agencies?? That's not terrorism to you?
You can't put a country or a religion or a group on the spot and blame them 'terrorists' EVERY culture, government and religion has these so called terrorists who love to kill others!!

Let's get back to a more objective debate as the whole 'Pakistan using it's nuclear umbrella for terrorism' is baseless and childish. Read my above paragraph again. Some countries are big, rich and privileged enough that they can name their terrorism related activities to 'self protection' like India and others. Some are unfortunate enough to always be getting the blame for 'supporting terrorism' when they actually help you curb it or expand it when you wanted. Post being is, every country in power does that and supports it through its might!!

Again Israel's 'opaque' policy vs. Pakistan...like I said, the day Pakistan can field 500 front line jets that are state of the art and can match India's af, the NW policy will go in the back as a 'deterrence'. Until then, Pakistan will have a short threshold and constant expansion as that's their national security umbrella. Just like attacking in Palestinian territory and killing 'suspicious' people as a 'right to self defense' Israel is your major policy.

Anyway, like I said, I expected a better debate but the response was very biased. So I won't worry about responding in the future. It's useless to argue with someone who's already made up his mind about something else and isn't willing to learn or share new ideas. That's the idea behind forums.

 

[nirreich]

Alright man. I am about 75% positive you are not an Israeli. Just by the nature of your responses. However, I could be wrong or may be American jews have more open insight into things than what they have in Israel. A lot of your arguments are actually flawed and biased towards India.

Now let's start with some reality. You can't clap with one hand. It takes two to do so. I was actually looking at a neutral debate but that's not going to happen after seeing your biased post...

1) Israel's 'deterrence' is because is has probably the fourth best air force in the world. Way ahead of your neighbors or 'enemies' so to speak. How many other air forces can provide about 400 - 500 top line state of the art fighter jets and ranges in minutes? You can conventionally overwhelm your neighbors so why include NW's in the picture? Everyone knows they are there...
Give this to the Pakistanis and you'll see the same thing. NW's will become a back end deterrence as conventionally it'll match the Indians.

2) You were quick to point out all attacks in the Indian history. That tells me you are either an Indian living in Israel or just using Israel's flag. I am opposed to all terror attacks anywhere in the world.
However, define terror attacks for me? Attacks on Indian parliament or Tag hotel are terror attacks....I get that and understand. How about the Christians, Muslims whose houses were burned down when they were sleeping inside....the whole villages were burnt down. It's been a ritual in certain Indian states by fundamental hidus. How come no one ever talks about those?
How about raping of Kashmiri women and girls? open air killing of innocent males (hundreds of thousands of them) that weren't even carrying weapons....? How come no one talks about those as terror attacks?
How about when Israeli tanks shell back when people throw stones at them? Stonnes vs. 120 mm shell in the shape of rain....that's not terror attack to you bro? How about IDF's sound barrier crossing / practices at low altitudes in the Palestinian territory that's resulted in tons of def kids? That's not terror to you? If you have half the humanity I think you do, then you should understand terror against civilians is a terror. It doesn't change for certain countries or certain religions!
So EVERY country with power in my view is a terrorist to some degree. Look at the examples I gave you. There is no such thing as JUST poor Pakistan trying to expand terror. How about the 6000 + bombings and unlimited violence within Pakistan backed up by Indian agencies?? That's not terrorism to you?
You can't put a country or a religion or a group on the spot and blame them 'terrorists' EVERY culture, government and religion has these so called terrorists who love to kill others!!

Let's get back to a more objective debate as the whole 'Pakistan using it's nuclear umbrella for terrorism' is baseless and childish. Read my above paragraph again. Some countries are big, rich and privileged enough that they can name their terrorism related activities to 'self protection' like India and others. Some are unfortunate enough to always be getting the blame for 'supporting terrorism' when they actually help you curb it or expand it when you wanted. Post being is, every country in power does that and supports it through its might!!

Again Israel's 'opaque' policy vs. Pakistan...like I said, the day Pakistan can field 500 front line jets that are state of the art and can match India's af, the NW policy will go in the back as a 'deterrence'. Until then, Pakistan will have a short threshold and constant expansion as that's their national security umbrella. Just like attacking in Palestinian territory and killing 'suspicious' people as a 'right to self defense' Israel is your major policy.

Anyway, like I said, I expected a better debate but the response was very biased. So I won't worry about responding in the future. It's useless to argue with someone who's already made up his mind about something else and isn't willing to learn or share new ideas. That's the idea behind forums.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am indeed an Israeli, what made you think otherwise? Why should I pretend to be an Israeli when I am not?

Furthermore, I do not see what the big fas is about. I am discussing these issues with you, I am open to listen to different opinions than mine, but in parallel I am allowed to have my own ideas and thoughts. As you said this is what forums are for.

As for your comments regarding terrorism. You should differentiate between state-sponsoring terrorism and sectarian/ethnic violence and between targeting civilians intentionally and civilian casualties as a result of counter terrorism although they were not the objective of the operations.

As far as I know (and you and anyone else are welcomed to shed more light and information) the Indian government never endorsed a policy of attacking/killing innocent civilians Muslims or of other minorities and the same applies to Israel. Unfortunately civilians have been hurt/killed in the Palestinians territories but during Israel's military operations against terror organisations while trying at their best to minimise the casualties among civilians. I am less sure about the efforts of the Indian security forces in this regard, but I am positive that India too has no and never had a policy of killing innocent people.

Unlike India and Israel Pakistan's defence establishment use terrorism (e.g., killing innocent civilians) as a main tool to break India's firm stance against any appeasement in Kashmir. It is all well documented and Pakistani military and government officials admitted that such a policy exist: from the "Kashmir Operation" of 1989 and until the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 and beyond. This is the fundamental difference between Pakistan and India and Israel (and the US for that matter).

Furthermore you completely missed my main argument: Pakistan is different from Israel in its will to change its regional situation and by using aggressive means such as terrorism, nuclear threats, and military campaigns. On the contrary, Israel wants to preserve its current regional position and achieve a political settlement with all its neighbours, even by withdrawing from territories it gained in its military conflicts in the past (like Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula for a peace agreement with Egypt).

I agree with you that a strategic balance between India and Pakistan might have postponed Pakistan's nuclear policy of launching asymmetric terror campaign against India while India cannot use its conventional superiority to stop it. Maybe a better equipped PAF could do the difference. However, as long as Pakistan has the fixation of strategic balance with India it will use the means necessary to achieve this goal: in a case of conventional force which matches India Pakistan would probably use a war of attrition and endless rounds of military campaigns until India will acquiesce to Pakistan's demands on Kashmir. In light of Pakistan's conventional inferiority it uses terrorism with a nuclear umbrella, very simple.

I hope we can further discuss the issues above in a sincere and open way and particularly the main subject of this thread: Pakistan's nuclear development.

Note: The reply has been shortened (shown by "...") to conserve everyone's time



The only similarity between Pakistan's and Israel's enemies was/is size. India's military fights under one flag while the Arab armies had been fragmented (losing any advantage they had over Israel's military) before and after 1947.



There was no pretext. There is a genuine movement inside the Indian part of Kashmir and it has been ruthlessly attacked by the Indian administration.



The risk of nuclear war always exists between two nuclear-armed nations. The Kargil war was affected to an extent by the lack of proper air support (no BVR capabilities granted by the US, unlike Russian assistance to India). And no, Pakistan did not turn to terror attacks. No attack has had any state sponsoring.



Again, Pakistan is not launching attacks against India. Pakistan has reserved its military strength for defensive purposes only and not to "destabilize current world order". The US assistance is linked to their current war in Afghanistan, for the services we rendered to thier previous program in Afghanistan (Mujahideen). Their financial contribution to our nuclear program is well documented and does not represent a large portion of the assistance.



Logically speaking, Israel did what was necessary for its interests, but many of those actions are nowhere close to generous. Remember the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip ??



We have someone in custody (who belongs to a peaceful country, btw) for his involvement in terrorist activities inside Pakistan. With the exception of India, no other country in the wold has any reason to be concerned by our nuclear capabilitites as long as they don't attack us .



Yes, the Israeli settlement issue gained international attention
But seriously, Pakistan only seeks deterrence and just enough capabilities to maintain its defense. There is no aim to threaten international security or to change the balance of power. We have every right to ensure a level playing field just as every other country in the world aims to do. So I see no big deal in this.

Can you elaborate what is exactly enough nuclear deterrence? Pakistan obviously aspires to more than just minimal nuclear deterrence (like China and North Korea for example)

 

[Viper0011.]

As for your comments regarding terrorism. You should differentiate between state-sponsoring terrorism and sectarian/ethnic violence and between targeting civilians intentionally and civilian casualties as a result of counter terrorism although they were not the objective of the operations.

Unlike India and Israel Pakistan's defence establishment use terrorism (e.g., killing innocent civilians) as a main tool to break India's firm stance against any appeasement in Kashmir. It is all well documented and Pakistani military and government officials admitted that such a policy exist: from the "Kashmir Operation" of 1989 and until the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 and beyond. This is the fundamental difference between Pakistan and India and Israel (and the US for that matter).

Furthermore you completely missed my main argument: Pakistan is different from Israel in its will to change its regional situation and by using aggressive means such as terrorism, nuclear threats, and military campaigns. On the contrary, Israel wants to preserve its current regional position and achieve a political settlement with all its neighbours, even by withdrawing from territories it gained in its military conflicts in the past (like Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula for a peace agreement with Egypt).

However, as long as Pakistan has the fixation of strategic balance with India it will use the means necessary to achieve this goal: in a case of conventional force which matches India Pakistan would probably use a war of attrition and endless rounds of military campaigns until India will acquiesce to Pakistan's demands on Kashmir. In light of Pakistan's conventional inferiority it uses terrorism with a nuclear umbrella, very simple.

Can you elaborate what is exactly enough nuclear deterrence? Pakistan obviously aspires to more than just minimal nuclear deterrence (like China and North Korea for example)

So some brief answers in my personal point of view:
1) There is NO such thing as a "differentiator" between state sponsored terrorism and non-state sponsored or group based. Terrorism is terrorism. Done by a military establishment or religious fundamental groups ANYWHERE in the world for any reason that kills civilians.
I disagree with the whole thing that India & Israel are unlike Pakistan as they try to save 'civilian casualties'. I know the situation in Kashmir & other parts of India WAY TO WELL. I know the situation in Israel as well. Just because someone tells its army to 'kill but don't tell', doesn't mean that specific establishment hasn't committed terrorism. Don't ask don't report doesn't take away the fact that women were raped, young children were burnt in their homes and men killed. Read about Kashmir's civil right's situation and if you can find a credible source. You'll know. The soldier to civilian ratio went to 14:1 for the longest point. UCLA had documented that and should be available for public. Similarly, Syria, Israel, my beloved US and other big countries have supported, or directly pushed these agendas that to me is terrorism as civilians were killed to obtain certain objectives. You can differ with me and that's fine.
Did you also know that the UN's resolution passed for Iraq was initially taken from the resolution passed for India to get out of Kashmir in 1960's? But was never implemented? Go figure!!! Just like I said before, India, Pak, Israel, US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Syria...ALL do terrorism for their own purposes. Some of them are under the lime light for various reasons or being muslim establishments, the rest enjoy media supremacy and lobby that covers all news. End of the story.

My point is, as humans, we nee to call terrorism 'terrorism' not further differentiate per our personal, national or financial objectives. A world of coexistence needs to exist where people can go beyond who they are and to mutual beneficial life for all!

 

[Malik Usman]

Hello everyone,

Just a general question: Why Pakistan develops more nuclear weapons?

According to most estimates it already possess more than 50 nuclear bombs which are more than enough to deter India from any military campaign. The proofs are India's restraint in the Kargil Crisis, in the 2002 tension after the terror attack against the Indian parliament house in New Delhi, after 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai, and in the crisis of 1990.

Developing more nuclear weapons requires building an expensive plutonium programme: nuclear powers, nuclear fuel fabrication facilities and of course plutonium processing facility. Furthermore, it requires developing long-range missiles in equivalence to a satellite/space programme and tactical nuclear weapons for use against India's conventional forces. Pakistan has no extra money to spend around and all these nuclear capabilities cost a lot of money. Some of the nuclear infrastructure could be used for producing electricity but clearly most of the nuclear programme is design to developing nuclear weapons.

Any ideas will be welcomed.

We may also be needed these nukes for some other nations which may sent their fighters to destroy Pakistani Nuke Facilities, as one did, she tried before with India (Fighters were landed in Jammu Kashmir)...............You know what i means

 

[KingMamba]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am indeed an Israeli, what made you think otherwise? Why should I pretend to be an Israeli when I am not?

Furthermore, I do not see what the big fas is about. I am discussing these issues with you, I am open to listen to different opinions than mine, but in parallel I am allowed to have my own ideas and thoughts. As you said this is what forums are for.

As for your comments regarding terrorism. You should differentiate between state-sponsoring terrorism and sectarian/ethnic violence and between targeting civilians intentionally and civilian casualties as a result of counter terrorism although they were not the objective of the operations.

As far as I know (and you and anyone else are welcomed to shed more light and information) the Indian government never endorsed a policy of attacking/killing innocent civilians Muslims or of other minorities and the same applies to Israel. Unfortunately civilians have been hurt/killed in the Palestinians territories but during Israel's military operations against terror organisations while trying at their best to minimise the casualties among civilians. I am less sure about the efforts of the Indian security forces in this regard, but I am positive that India too has no and never had a policy of killing innocent people.

Unlike India and Israel Pakistan's defence establishment use terrorism (e.g., killing innocent civilians) as a main tool to break India's firm stance against any appeasement in Kashmir. It is all well documented and Pakistani military and government officials admitted that such a policy exist: from the "Kashmir Operation" of 1989 and until the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 and beyond. This is the fundamental difference between Pakistan and India and Israel (and the US for that matter).

Furthermore you completely missed my main argument: Pakistan is different from Israel in its will to change its regional situation and by using aggressive means such as terrorism, nuclear threats, and military campaigns. On the contrary, Israel wants to preserve its current regional position and achieve a political settlement with all its neighbours, even by withdrawing from territories it gained in its military conflicts in the past (like Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula for a peace agreement with Egypt).

I agree with you that a strategic balance between India and Pakistan might have postponed Pakistan's nuclear policy of launching asymmetric terror campaign against India while India cannot use its conventional superiority to stop it. Maybe a better equipped PAF could do the difference. However, as long as Pakistan has the fixation of strategic balance with India it will use the means necessary to achieve this goal: in a case of conventional force which matches India Pakistan would probably use a war of attrition and endless rounds of military campaigns until India will acquiesce to Pakistan's demands on Kashmir. In light of Pakistan's conventional inferiority it uses terrorism with a nuclear umbrella, very simple.

I hope we can further discuss the issues above in a sincere and open way and particularly the main subject of this thread: Pakistan's nuclear development.



Can you elaborate what is exactly enough nuclear deterrence? Pakistan obviously aspires to more than just minimal nuclear deterrence (like China and North Korea for example)

1000 nuclear bombs with ICBM's with 15,000km maximum range and MIRV is a must along with a couple of thermonuclear bombs to boot.

 

[solbadguy]

1000 nuclear bombs with ICBM's with 15,000km maximum range and MIRV is a must along with a couple of thermonuclear bombs to boot.

It takes money to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

 

[RazorMC]

Can you elaborate what is exactly enough nuclear deterrence? Pakistan obviously aspires to more than just minimal nuclear deterrence (like China and North Korea for example)

Generally speaking, there is no limit (upper or lower) to the number of nukes a country may develop to deter would-be attackers. And nuclear weapons are some of the most effective deterrents, clearly shown by the fact that only one country has ever used them in war.

The number of N-weapons we have is unclear and there is a reason for that; even more effective deterrence.
India has a significant military advantage in terms of numbers and technology and our conventional strength is not even close to what we need to defend the borders. This is why Pakistan needs a sizeable number of nukes. And the fact that India is currently working on thermo-nuclear weapons only increases the importance of nuclear deterrence even further.

 

[illusion8]

Generally speaking, there is no limit (upper or lower) to the number of nukes a country may develop to deter would-be attackers. And nuclear weapons are some of the most effective deterrents, clearly shown by the fact that only one country has ever used them in war.

The number of N-weapons we have is unclear and there is a reason for that; even more effective deterrence.
India has a significant military advantage in terms of numbers and technology and our conventional strength is not even close to what we need to defend the borders. This is why Pakistan needs a sizeable number of nukes. And the fact that India is currently working on thermo-nuclear weapons only increases the importance of nuclear deterrence even further.

Pakistan has the India bogey and India has the China bogey, as far as knowing the exact number of nukes, not all nuclear countries have declared how many nukes they actually possess, all are speculative figures based on fissile material availability. At the height of the cold war the US possessed 70,000 nukes an almost equivalent amount was sported by the Soviets. The British say they posses 225 nuke warheads. Arms grade Fissile material available with Pakistan is about 300 kgs and with India its about 1000 kgs - again this is based on rough analysis, the truth could be different.

 

[I M Sikander]

1000 nuclear bombs with ICBM's with 15,000km maximum range and MIRV is a must along with a couple of thermonuclear bombs to boot.

Come on dude, WHo needs 1000s of nukes and Why. Pakistan's defense needs are india centric and for that we dont needs 1000s of nukes.

Pakistan has already stock piled enough fissile material for its deterance needs (around 80+ nukes by various estimates). We need to concentarte on tactical weapons program along with missile program.

Pakistani authorities are already operating KRL Plant on lower capacity level and conecntrating more on Plutonium based nukes. By inducting 6-8 more plutonium based nukes each year I think Pakistan is doing the right thing. We dont need to rush madly towards stock pilling of fissile material, its useless, expensive and counter productive.

 

[KingMamba]

It takes money to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Yeah I know my personal opinion is that they shouldn't even be worrying about nukes and should instead build up the economy which in return would lead to more money for the country which they can than use on their forces. However my post was an answer to nirreich about how much in my opinion is enough of a deterrence.

Come on dude, WHo needs 1000s of nukes and Why. Pakistan's defense needs are india centric and for that we dont needs 1000s of nukes.

Pakistan has already stock piled enough fissile material for its deterance needs (around 80+ nukes by various estimates). We need to concentarte on tactical weapons program along with missile program.

Pakistani authorities are already operating KRL Plant on lower capacity level and conecntrating more on Plutonium based nukes. By inducting 6-8 more plutonium based nukes each year I think Pakistan is doing the right thing. We dont need to rush madly towards stock pilling of fissile material, its useless, expensive and counter productive.

Same as above however if you think India is the only country Pakistan has to worry about you are mistaken.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Pakistan never wanted nuclear weapon nor it was our intention to create nuclear weapon. It was India who did it in 1974, They invaded Siachen in 1980s.. Again they first tested in 1998. We just responded them.
Yes Pakistani Nuclear weapons are for minimum deterrence.
Pakistan never want to kill civilian in the war. Nuclear weapons are miniaturizing for this purpose. Nasr is one example. This is for tactical purpose for only to destroy Battle field or unit, Not for cities or to kill civilian.
80-100 Nukes are enough. No need to enhance that with bigger yields.
But if war happens, and nuclear/chemical weapons are used. Tactical nuclear weapons are needed to save our and their civilians.
thats why we need tactical nukes with low yield. This can destroy the military/units of enemy but civilian are much safe now.
In India, They are not miniaturizing their nuclear weapon, because they are not concerned with the life of simple civilian in Pakistan....
That's why they want to keep 12+ kT yield which is truculent for civilian and whole city.

There is need to ban/trash all the nuclear weapon weapon in the world.
I hope World power(U.S, Russia) will start this tradition, and then after If India disposes and trashes their nuclear weapon, Pakistan will also disable and trash them.
Win Win situation in this scenario.

 

[The SC]

Israelis and their supporter seem to be very puzzled concerning Pakistani capabilities and abilities.

Not surprising since arrogance blinds them, it is a gift of God to us that they are blind to our possibilities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious? This is the best you could come up with? I am sorry to see your counter argument. This is a military related forum. Prove me with otherwise factual statements to what I wrote. This cultural BS still doesn't help. What I wrote about Israel & Pakistan's bases of existence was correct. History has it, the military situation is also correct and available to public.....so not sure what your counter argument's about.

A healthy and productive discussion is where both parties use facts. Btw, how far back does the "Indus River" population foes? Remember, Islam came around 14+ centuries ago....Indus Valley & Moinjadoro traces of human life go way far beyond that. No one can confirm if these were Christians, Jews, Hindus or believers of books before Islam....
Also, Israel and Pakistan face seven times larger enemies on multiple sides of their borders. THAT was my point.



Right. I don't think that's the case. Pakistan will always modernize everything it's got to keep a minimum deterrence (thanks to India's power ride). I think Pakistani leadership should send flowers to the Indian establishment. Otherwise, they'll be FARRRR behind.
As far as the economy not working well nowadays..may ask your government to get off the horse of being a super power dream as it's not realistic when half a billion of the population sleeps without proper beds!

Since you are using politics (that suite your likings) for a military argument to prove the existence of an apartheid and illegitimate regime called Israel. The facto existance of israel is a temporary de facto...

I than repeat, and if you do not understand go further you studies on the subject.

The comparison of Israel( an extremely tiny country with an atheist majority) with Pakistan is farfetched;

Jews in ancient times had a few tribes on Arab lands (by the way these original Jews were Arabs converted to Judaism, like the first batch of Christians too), while Pakistan Has the original Indus valley civilisation populace along with Afghanistan and south eastern Iran.
(existentional facts not comparable).
To compare a western political implant in the middle east with original people of a land called Pakistan, is not sound, nor is the military depth of Israel and Pakistan. Let alone the whole situation of the middle east and the south Asian one.(legitimacy is not comparable)

So, go take a hike with your intellect and meditate on this before vomiting what your AIPAC tells you to tell.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

PAKISTAN needs more education ......................... less corruption .................... and more transparency

 

[regular]

PAKISTAN needs more education ......................... less corruption .................... and more transparency

So many pplz are educated but have no job so whats the use of more education man???........its useless to spend money on the useless education.......its better to raise sheeps and goats.....the inflation is skyrocketting and is no return from any education......

 

[asad71]

Pakistan should continue making the bomb and upgrading this as well as the delivery system. Pakistan should look at her nuclear assets as assets of the Muslim world. Gradually these should be distributed to Muslim nations needing this. BD would be the first candidate.