Pakistan needs more nukes?

[itaskol]

This is half Kiloton tactical weapon explosion..Its a small warhead but look at the effectiveness...
id not sink the ships but damaged them enough to render useless or cause retreat...
This can be done with one weapon...Doing the same with conventional weapons will be very difficult for Pakistan ans dont have that many precissiomn guided weapons.

this is very likely neutron bomb.

 

[Safriz]

this is very likely neutron bomb.

what makes you say that...
neutron bomb does not give such shock wave..only radiation...

 

[itaskol]

what makes you say that...
neutron bomb does not give such shock wave..only radiation...

because the fireball seems to small for a half Kiloton.

 

[The SC]

India has enough weapon grade plutonium for a thousand nukes and Indians are complaining about a few hundred from Pakistan, So no wonder Pakistan is getting more and more.

 

[muse]

Pakistan needs more specialty advanced schools - not more nukes

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Pakistan needs all the nukes it can lay its hands upon.

 

[The SC]

And all the schools it needs and wants too.

 

[Zarvan]

We can not reach US and Israel is of interest only in that you are assisting India

Pakistan can easily reach USA and Israel is already in our range Sir first at least check what we have and Euorpe will be soon in our rang if it is not already because some news are there that Pakistan has already developed ICBMS and we need missiles with the range of 10000 KM at least

 

[nirreich]

I never implied that Pakistan's nukes are to destroy Israel , but rather they are two states we have on target list in case of a war. In other words , these two countries are most like to attack Pakistan in the future than any other.

Now coming back , we actually don't need people to come and defend us. We are fully capable of rubbing any invaders face into the ground ourselves . See how we returned the favor to USSR in Afghanistan for starting the Mukhti Bahini in E.Pakistan?

We historically are country "able" to help --not right now though --- in a war situation not take help since we are self sufficient.

I never saw any official Pakistani attribution (by government or army) to Israel as an enemy, let alone as a target of nuclear attack. Do you have any information to support your argument?

 

[Thorough Pro]

200 nukes for a large enemy not for a small economy.

200 nukes for small economy like Pakistan, you are struck in a trap just keep on spending more weaking your economy.

India has nuclear deal and untouched huge Uranium mines, still we are not going for that craziness.

Know what, Pakistan don't need to spend a single penny on maintenance or security. Certains countries will gladly bear that expense. This my friend is called strategic thinking.

Yes you guys do need them make more and more of them then spend money on keeping them maintaining them protecting them that would be nice

 

[VelocuR]

Don't forget the day US's first 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy' bombing on Japan. With this less than 15-20kt, Why would Russia very nervous at that time?

It is same trick, Pakistan's measures bomb is bigger than Fat Man/Little Boy.

 

[illusion8]

The latest news from America must have thrilled many: Pakistan probably has more nuclear weapons than India. A recent Washington Post article, quoting various nuclear experts, suggests that Pakistan is primed to “surge ahead in the production of nuclear-weapons material, putting it on a path to overtake Britain as the world’s fifth largest nuclear weapons power”.
Some may shrug off this report as alarmist anti-Pakistan propaganda, while others will question the accuracy of such claims. Indeed, given the highly secret nature of nuclear programmes everywhere, at best one can only make educated guesses on weapons and their materials. For Pakistan, it is well known that the Kahuta complex has been producing highly enriched uranium for a quarter century, and that there are two operational un-safeguarded plutonium-producing reactors at Khushab (with a third one under construction). Still, the exact amounts of bomb-grade material and weapons are closely held secrets.
But for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the claims made are correct. Indeed, let us suppose that Pakistan surpasses India in numbers – say by 50 per cent or even 100 per cent. Will that really make Pakistan more secure? Make it more capable of facing current existential challenges?
The answer is, no. Pakistan’s basic security problems lie within its borders: growing internal discord and militancy, a collapsing economy, and a belief among most citizens that the state cannot govern effectively. These are deep and serious problems that cannot be solved by more or better weapons. Therefore the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law.
Pakistanis have long imagined the Bomb as a panacea for all ills. It became axiomatic that, in addition to providing total security, the Bomb would give help us liberate Kashmir, give Pakistan international visibility, create national pride and elevate the country’s technological status. But these promises proved empty.
The Bomb did nothing to bring Kashmiri liberation closer. India’s grip on Kashmir is tighter today than it has been for a long time and is challenged only by the courageous uprising of Kashmiris. Pakistan’s strategy for confronting India — secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella — backfired terribly after Kargil and nearly turned Pakistan into an international pariah. More importantly, today’s hydra-headed militancy owes to the Kashmiri and Afghan mujahideen who avenged their betrayal by Pakistan’s army and politicians by turning their guns against their former sponsors and trainers.
What became of the claim that pride in the bomb would miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute Pakistan? While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away. Karachi staggers along with multiple ethnically motivated killings; Muhajirs and Pakhtuns are locked in a deadly battle. As for the Baloch, they are in open revolt. They resent that the two nuclear test sites — now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at being governed from Islamabad, some have taken up arms and demand that army cantonments be dismantled. The Bomb was no glue.
Some might ask, didn’t the Bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? The answer is, no. First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 180 million Muslims. Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If the mighty American python could not digest Iraq or Afghanistan, there is zero chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.
It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. India could do nothing after Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i-Muhammad), or the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba. So should we keep the Bomb to protect militant groups? Surely it is time to realise that conducting foreign policy in this manner will buy us nothing but disaster after disaster.
It was a lie that the Bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled situation and offers no way out. It is time for Pakistan to drop its illogical opposition to the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty which, incidentally, would impact India far more than Pakistan. We need fewer bombs on both sides, not more.

Pakistan

Pervez hoodbhoy, not many people here will agree with him , Pakistani's are too emotional about their Nukes, I posted it just to see the other side of the argument.

 

[Zarvan]

Why only ICBM ? It can make missiles with megatons of nukes with 10 mirvs in each . Who knows you even might have stealth strategic bomber . Now grow up buddy Pakistan having ICBM is a trash . No test have been done . Still if you feel they will work dont ask me if they blow on your territory .

Sir we reached the capability of testing Nuclear Weapns in 1984 but tested them in 1998 because of political reasons Sir politics in these cases plays a lot in Pakistan and Sir we already have ICBMS if you don't know anything about Pakistan than remain quite Sir we will test when we will feel the need to do them and by the way we have started work on Stealth Plane with China also we will get J-20 Plane to

 

[IND151]

As long as there are still people who need to ask, in nervous voices, "Does Pakistan really need more nukes?"... then yes, Pakistan does need more nukes.



No problem buddy. We aren't even a signatory to the MTCR anyway, so there are no legal obstacles.

Pakistan may develop ICBM with 9,000 KM range (with Chinese help if needed)

if Pak's ICBM fails, they face more sanctions

if they succeed, along with sanction US and western nations will start seeing Pak as Green Danger

in both scenarios, India gains

 

[IND151]

The latest news from America must have thrilled many: Pakistan probably has more nuclear weapons than India. A recent Washington Post article, quoting various nuclear experts, suggests that Pakistan is primed to “surge ahead in the production of nuclear-weapons material, putting it on a path to overtake Britain as the world’s fifth largest nuclear weapons power”.
Some may shrug off this report as alarmist anti-Pakistan propaganda, while others will question the accuracy of such claims. Indeed, given the highly secret nature of nuclear programmes everywhere, at best one can only make educated guesses on weapons and their materials. For Pakistan, it is well known that the Kahuta complex has been producing highly enriched uranium for a quarter century, and that there are two operational un-safeguarded plutonium-producing reactors at Khushab (with a third one under construction). Still, the exact amounts of bomb-grade material and weapons are closely held secrets.
But for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the claims made are correct. Indeed, let us suppose that Pakistan surpasses India in numbers – say by 50 per cent or even 100 per cent. Will that really make Pakistan more secure? Make it more capable of facing current existential challenges?
The answer is, no. Pakistan’s basic security problems lie within its borders: growing internal discord and militancy, a collapsing economy, and a belief among most citizens that the state cannot govern effectively. These are deep and serious problems that cannot be solved by more or better weapons. Therefore the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law.
Pakistanis have long imagined the Bomb as a panacea for all ills. It became axiomatic that, in addition to providing total security, the Bomb would give help us liberate Kashmir, give Pakistan international visibility, create national pride and elevate the country’s technological status. But these promises proved empty.
The Bomb did nothing to bring Kashmiri liberation closer. India’s grip on Kashmir is tighter today than it has been for a long time and is challenged only by the courageous uprising of Kashmiris. Pakistan’s strategy for confronting India — secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella — backfired terribly after Kargil and nearly turned Pakistan into an international pariah. More importantly, today’s hydra-headed militancy owes to the Kashmiri and Afghan mujahideen who avenged their betrayal by Pakistan’s army and politicians by turning their guns against their former sponsors and trainers.
What became of the claim that pride in the bomb would miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute Pakistan? While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away. Karachi staggers along with multiple ethnically motivated killings; Muhajirs and Pakhtuns are locked in a deadly battle. As for the Baloch, they are in open revolt. They resent that the two nuclear test sites — now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at being governed from Islamabad, some have taken up arms and demand that army cantonments be dismantled. The Bomb was no glue.
Some might ask, didn’t the Bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? The answer is, no. First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 180 million Muslims. Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If the mighty American python could not digest Iraq or Afghanistan, there is zero chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.
It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. India could do nothing after Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i-Muhammad), or the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba. So should we keep the Bomb to protect militant groups? Surely it is time to realise that conducting foreign policy in this manner will buy us nothing but disaster after disaster.
It was a lie that the Bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled situation and offers no way out. It is time for Pakistan to drop its illogical opposition to the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty which, incidentally, would impact India far more than Pakistan. We need fewer bombs on both sides, not more.

Pakistan

Pervez hoodbhoy, not many people here will agree with him , Pakistani's are too emotional about their Nukes, I posted it just to see the other side of the argument.

good article