Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s: SIPRI

[Prometheus]

In a nuclear war, everyone is a loser

 

[Dr.Evil]

Good for pakistan, I dont mind even if pakistan becomes No.1 country in Nuclear warheads.

I am happy with india having a small arseal of 60-80 Nuclear warheads.

 

[T-Faz]

Pakistan's Kasab I reactor

Who says we only have these for India, we have many countries to destroy in one go.

This report is old too, we are increasing our fighting capabilities many folds, we do not know who to fight yet but we are picking our target.

Here is something else for you people to see.

Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Sites, Shows New Satellite Images (Photos)

 

[ajpirzada]

this report said that pak can produce XX more at short notice but didnt mention the similar thing for india. y not?

 

[!!craft!!]

Good for pakistan, I dont mind even if pakistan becomes No.1 country in Nuclear warheads.

I am happy with india having a small arseal of 60-80 Nuclear warheads.

congradulations pakistan ... i hope you spend more resources in developing nukes and become the numero uno in nukes!!! i guess india is a gonner now for sure

 

[Vasily Zaytsev]

Because in INDIA it take ages to produce anything.

And we don't have any know how to produce nuclear weapons.

Our tests failed so we don't have any working nuclear weapon.

 

[SpArK]

this report said that pak can produce XX more at short notice but didnt mention the similar thing for india. y not?

No idea, have to ask the author.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Because in INDIA it take ages to produce anything.

And we don't have any know how to produce nuclear weapons.

Our tests failed so we don't have any working nuclear weapon.

Shut up... if you cant debate, better leave.

 

[!!craft!!]

this report said that pak can produce XX more at short notice but didnt mention the similar thing for india. y not?

Sir,that is because india has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on credible minimum deterrence.In august 1999 theindian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclearweapons are solely for deterrence and that indiawill pursue a policy of retaliation only.The document also maintains that indiawill not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.. so 50 to 60 nukes are more than enough for india minimum deterance policy..

 

[Prometheus]

this report said that pak can produce XX more at short notice but didnt mention the similar thing for india. y not?

hhhhmmm good question!!!!

I think he pointed out Pakistan because in current situation Pakistan is just like center of all global Politics

 

[rohailmalhi]

Read it.. a single nuclear reactor called tarapur alone produces 490 MWs.
[/COLOR]

yes benny i think i know these thing better than u .
and the thing is u r getting ur nuclear plants frm Mother Russiaand u can afford it but we right now cannt afford and have bigger plants from china .but i think we are going to have bigger plants soon .
Just look at the planned nuclear plants pakistan is going to have
till 2030 the total capacity is likley to be 8800 MW .

 

[Spring Onion]

We had stopped piling when we had the required numbers. That's why you see more developments in the civilian fields with nuclear deals every now and then.

We are moving more into environmental friendly energy production and the newer projects are piling up at an astonishing rate with lots of solar power farms, windmill projects, power from waste etc etc coming up with private parties taking a big initiative.

What is the proof?

India does not require massive arm buying but still you are doing so and one of the biggest weapons' buyer in the world.

So whats the proof that India is not piling up nuclear war heads?

 

[Spring Onion]

Sir,that is because india has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on credible minimum deterrence.In august 1999 theindian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclearweapons are solely for deterrence and that indiawill pursue a policy of retaliation only.The document also maintains that indiawill not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.. so 50 to 60 nukes are more than enough for india minimum deterance policy..

And what it has to do not to mention India in the report ?


And its a known fact that mere declaring non-first use doesnt guarantee that India will not use it

 

[IndianArmy]

And what it has to do not to mention India in the report ?


And its a known fact that mere declaring non-first use doesnt guarantee that India will not use it

India cannot risk its foreign policy by using it first.... And If we are threatened by it, we have every rights to use it.... if Used against us, then The enemy would probably see it coming from Land,Air and sea..... We dont have anything to worry about as of now...

 

[SpArK]

yes benny i think i know these thing better than u .
and the thing is u r getting ur nuclear plants frm Mother Russiaand u can afford it but we right now cannt afford and have bigger plants from china .but i think we are going to have bigger plants soon .
Just look at the planned nuclear plants pakistan is going to have
till 2030 the total capacity is likley to be 8800 MW .

I agree with you that considerable help has been there from Canadians ,French and Russians in nuclear field. Now US have also jumped in to the field along with UK, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Namibia where there are large Uranium deposits.

Also the construction is mainly done by big companies like L&T,BHEL and others from India.

We are expecting 63,000 MWe by 2032.

Nuclear Power in India | Indian Nuclear Energy

 

[Ahmad]

i think india and pakistan have enough nuke to wipe each other and the countries surrounding them out if a war breaks out(unlikely anyway), why are they spending more money on it? instead they must invest in social welfare which is much needed.