What's new

Pakistan nukes outstrip India’s

Durrani

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Pakistan nukes outstrip India’s, officials say
U.S. reverses assessment of South Asia nuclear balance


By Robert Windrem and Tammy Kupperman

MSNBC.com NBC NEWS 06 June 2000

WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power. Interviews with senior U.S. officials in the past week revealed the view that Pakistan not only has more warheads than its longtime adversary, but has far more capability to actually use them.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS by India and Pakistan in May 1998 caught American intelligence off guard. While U.S. agencies long had known about weapons-development research in both countries, the decision by both to go public with their capabilities shocked policymakers.

Since then, U.S. intelligence and diplomacy has focused on South Asia with a new intensity. Until recently, for instance, Pakistan was considered to have somewhere between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons and India between 25 and 100.

But after two years of intelligence gathering, officials now believe those figures overstate the capabilities of India’s home-grown arsenal and understate those of Pakistan, whose program has relied on generous Chinese assistance. One official said the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers [25 to 100 weapons] than the Indians.”

Perhaps most important, the official said, is that Pakistan appears far more capable than India of delivering nuclear payloads. “I don’t think their [the Indian] program is as advanced as the Paks,” the official said, speaking particularly of ballistic missiles.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said longtime assumptions that India had an edge in the South Asian strategic balance of power were questionable, at best.

“Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians,” said Zinni, the senior U.S. officer responsible for the Middle East and South Asia.

Other military and intelligence officials, as well as an intelligence analysis of South Asia’s nuclear balance obtained by NBC News, shed more light on the revised view. NBC News is the broadcast partner of the MSNBC.com joint venture.

“They both have a capability,” said one senior military official. “Pakistan’s may be better than India’s, with more weapons and more capability.

“You can’t underestimate the Pakistani program,” said the official. Like most of the officials NBC News contacted, this one would speak only on condition of anonymity.

DOCUMENTS SUPPORT REVISED VIEW

These officials believe India understands that it is behind. A recent Defense Department analysis of the Indian program obtained by MSNBC.com states that India is moving to address its shortcomings.

Quoting India’s recently publicized draft nuclear doctrine, the Defense Department report said that “India announced its plans to develop a minimum nuclear deterrent force comprised of a triad of nuclear delivery systems — air, mobile land-based launches and sea-based platforms. The air component of its triad is the only one that may be in place already.”

The U.S. report also states that “India probably has a handful of nuclear bombs,” meaning about five. With regard to delivery systems — the missiles and bombers needed to launch a nuclear strike — U.S. officials now believe Indian capabilities to be seriously lagging.

According to the Defense Department document, which is unclassified, India has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer aircraft capable of delivering a nuclear payload than Pakistan does. India has twice tested a new intermediate-ranged missile, the Agni, which may eventually provide the basis of a nuclear missile force. However, current U.S. analysis suggests the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. Additionally, India appears to only have begun work on missile warhead design and on the miniaturization of weapons — two critical hurdles to the actual use of weapons.

The U.S. assessment of Pakistan, on the other hand, has been greatly upgraded.

A U.S. official stated that Pakistani air and missile delivery systems are now believed to be “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.

Most importantly, Pakistan is now thought to possess about 30 nuclear-capable missiles: the Chinese M-11 short-range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile (known locally as the Ghauri).

HAIR-TRIGGER CONCERN

The mystery that shrouds both of these growing nuclear arsenals has become a major cause for concern among U.S. policymakers, who even before the 1998 tests had deemed South Asia the most likely site of a nuclear war.

According to one analysis done by the U.S. Air Force, more than 150 million Indians and Pakistanis could perish in an all-out nuclear exchange — three times the total number of people who died in World War II.

One frequently cited fear among U.S. intelligence officials is an accidental nuclear war in which Pakistan mistakes the firing of an Indian missile bearing a conventional warhead as a nuclear strike.

Despite what appears to be a healthy fear of the other on both sides, the United States still fears there could be a series of crises that lead to something worse. Last year’s Pakistani incursion in the Kargil area of Kashmir, the disputed Muslim territory controlled by India, is a good example of the region’s unpredictability.

“Kargil scared both sides,” Zinni said. “There is usually a gentleman’s agreement to keep conflict around the Line of Control,” he said, referring to the U.N. cease-fire line set after the two nations’ 1947 war over the region. “It escalated with mobilizations on different fronts — tit for tat. Both sides are now very concerned about how escalation works and how it could happen very quickly.”

Zinni said the United States intervened in the “nick of time” with Kargil. The United States doesn’t exert much influence on the daily level of fighting, but a senior military official does believe that Washington has some sway in terms of escalation because neither side really wants an all-out war, despite some hard-liners on both side who publicly claim they want to bring the issue to a head.


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


NBC News’ Tammy Kupperman is based at the Pentagon. Robert Windrem is an NBC News investigative producer based in New York.
 
F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.
Yeah right... may be the author forgot that India operates mirages too.
 
MSNBC.com NBC NEWS 06 June 2000


How did you managed to get this article dude?. Hats off.
 
The siutation is really scary, given the misadventures that pakistan have tried like in kargil, arms superiority only will give them confidence to actually carry out more such misadventures..!!! Hope india upgrades its anti-missle defence system very fast.
 
Historically, Pakistan has always considered been considered to have more nuclear warheads than it claims by intelligence sources.

Any nuclear war between India and Pakistan would belong to whoever conducts first strike. There's a good chance that if Pakistan manages to blow up 100-200 nukes in its first strike, India won't be able to hit back. Of course no one wants that, but when push comes to shove, its good to know the option is there.
 
The siutation is really scary, given the misadventures that pakistan have tried like in kargil, arms superiority only will give them confidence to actually carry out more such misadventures..!!! Hope india upgrades its anti-missle defence system very fast.

You may want to hope for that but if i were you, i wouldn't reason is that as soon as India does get its hands on an anti-ballistic system, the status quo will change and keeping aside how successful the anti ballistic system really is, Pakistan on the other hand will not take any chances, meaning an arms race will erupt. Pakistan more likely to enhance its arsenal with trying to achieve MIRV capability for her missiles. In any case it does not seem to be a win-win situation for India nor will it help India to start a conventional war with no fear of escalating to a nuclear war. The fear would always be there.
 
I have always considered nukes as a self-defeating weapon.

Supposing Pakistan or India get conquered or broken up by the other. Isn\'t that far more desirable than having the entire region annihilated by nuclear war? Future generations maimed and cursed to a life of wretchedness?

In my opinion, given the choice between India being defeated at the hands of Pakistan and Indians being made victims of nuclear war, I would choose the former over the latter.

Obviously, the leaders of the two nations don\'t think that way, or else they would never have gone for nuclear weapons .
 
What diff does it make as to who owns how many nukes ?

Can any one use all 100 or 200 of them that he owns ? Will the world permit it ?

Just one will be enough.. In any case the " threat' of such weapons carries more clout than their actual use. Once used, nukes lose their relevance.
 
What diff does it make as to who owns how many nukes ?

Can any one use all 100 or 200 of them that he owns ? Will the world permit it ?

Just one will be enough.. In any case the " threat\' of such weapons carries more clout than their actual use. Once used, nukes lose their relevance.

Sir, the best of men are known to make irrational decisions under pressure.

If an India-Pakistan war does happen, and one or the other nation comes close to losing more than it was willing to lose, what is the guarantee that the nuclear button will not be pressed?

During Kargil war, the threat was very real, and one small incident out of proportion could have snowballed into nuclear war. God forbid that such a situation should arise again.
 
Sir, the best of men are known to make irrational decisions under pressure.

If an India-Pakistan war does happen, and one or the other nation comes close to losing more than it was willing to lose, what is the guarantee that the nuclear button will not be pressed?

During Kargil war, the threat was very real, and one small incident out of proportion could have snowballed into nuclear war. God forbid that such a situation should arise again.

I was merely replying to the topic that says one side has more Nos of nukes than the other,to which I feel the qty does not hold as much relevance as it being made out.

As for pressing the button, if an institulalised apparatus exists, irrational decisions are unlikely. If it comes to being pressed.. well so be it. In our part of the world we have seen so many types of turmoil.. we'll muddle thru this as well.
 
I was merely replying to the topic that says one side has more Nos of nukes than the other,to which I feel the qty does not hold as much relevance as it being made out.

As for pressing the button, if an institulalised apparatus exists, irrational decisions are unlikely. If it comes to being pressed.. well so be it. In our part of the world we have seen so many types of turmoil.. we\'ll muddle thru this as well.

I\'m sorry, I assumed that you had replied to my post. It is true, that quantity does not make much difference. One nuclear bomb can cause enough destruction to significantly alter the course of history.

I am sure humanity will muddle through nuclear fallout, but one would have to prioritize. How much are you willing to lose before you press the self-destruct button?
 
I\'m sorry, I assumed that you had replied to my post. It is true, that quantity does not make much difference. One nuclear bomb can cause enough destruction to significantly alter the course of history.

I am sure humanity will muddle through nuclear fallout, but one would have to prioritize. How much are you willing to lose before you press the self-destruct button?


These are national strategic decisions depending on the ' threshold' of each nation.

Meanwhile...Lets enjoy ourselves while we can.
 
First thing - Post a link to the article

Also , this report is almost a decade old.

It also makes sense for Pak to have agreater Arsenal for deterrace , highly doubt that it would be used on either side though. In any case India will always back out of a Nuke exchance as it has an awful lot more to loose than Pakistan has.

A greater Population , Economic and Industrail Development etc etc. Kinda similar situation between India and China too , China has so much more to loose than India.

This situation of Relative superiority will always keep the world's nations from destroying each other.
 
india should drop "no first use" policy that will keep restricted 'any country' to do any misadventure.
 
Back
Top Bottom