Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to surpass Britain’s in a decade: Reports

[arp2041]

@arp2041 just have a doubt. In 1999 both nations made nukes which are carried by missiles and aircraft and fairly large ones.

But now producing new tactical nukes, one needs to test these nukes right. How can one just deploy it in battlefield without testing the new tactical nukes?

Buddy, tactical nuclear weapons are not different than the strategic nuclear weapons, the only difference is that the former are used to inflict damage on a smaller scale (for incoming armies or in a battlefield) & the latter ones are used to wipe out entire cities from the face of the earth. Thus, we are talking about the difference in terms of Yield b/w the two as the tactical ones have much lower yield than the strategic ones, India conducted 5 tests & Pakistan conducted 6 tests in 1998, they had conducted tests on every possible range of yields that include the ones in the tactical ranges.

The only issue was that from the year 1998 to Operation parakram, when the time was of large scale deployments, the focus of Pakistani establishment was on Strategic nukes, but with a change in Indian doctrine (to cold start) the focus shifted on the tactical nukes, so as to inflict lesser damage & only to military personnel, but this doesn't change Indian doctrine as usage of tactical weapons even on a foreign land but on Indian military personnel count as a nuclear first strike & India reserves the right to retaliate & as the Indian doctrine suggests, the retaliation would be massive.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Buddy, tactical nuclear weapons are not different than the strategic nuclear weapons, the only difference is that the former are used to inflict damage on a smaller scale (for incoming armies or in a battlefield) & the latter ones are used to wipe out entire cities from the face of the earth. Thus, we are talking about the difference in terms of Yield b/w the two as the tactical ones have much lower yield than the strategic ones, India conducted 5 tests & Pakistan conducted 6 tests in 1998, they had conducted tests on every possible range of yields that include the ones in the tactical ranges.

The only issue was that from the year 1998 to Operation parakram, when the time was of large scale deployments, the focus of Pakistani establishment was on Strategic nukes, but with a change in Indian doctrine (to cold start) the focus shifted on the tactical nukes, so as to inflict lesser damage & only to military personnel, but this doesn't change Indian doctrine as usage of tactical weapons even on a foreign land but on Indian military personnel count as a nuclear first strike & India reserves the right to retaliate & as the Indian doctrine suggests, the retaliation would be massive.

So There is every possibility of Pakistan having tested a small tactical nuke, that can be fitted in a very small missile like NASR.

I had thought, since their priorities have changed, they have developed new weapons. Even there is thread here, that Pakistan is developing "lighter " nuke weapons. And developing new weapons means testing.

Thats where my doubts had lies. Thanks mate.

 

[arp2041]

@Rajaraja Chola mate, even if a country develops new type of nuke weapons, the development of fast supercomputers ensures that they no longer have to test it physically, just the simulation of it is enough. All nuclear weapons state now conduct nuclear tests by computer simulations since the CTBT prohibits physical testing.

Supercomputer simulates nuclear explosion down to the molecular level

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

@Rajaraja Chola mate, even if a country develops new type of nuke weapons, the development of fast supercomputers ensures that they no longer have to test it physically, just the simulation of it is enough. All nuclear weapons state now conduct nuclear tests by computer simulations since the CTBT prohibits physical testing.

Supercomputer simulates nuclear explosion down to the molecular level

I already thought of Computer Simulated testing as a option. Its just, i felt, physical testing will be satisfactory.

Btw in 1998, world cannot detect Indian Pokhran test, due to the nature of the area, where we had conducted the test. It came as a complete surprise for the US and the west

 

[Kompromat]

How Nukes help pakistan is fighting TTP in NWFP.

Because it leaves India with icy feet which gives us time to fight the TTP. There is no TTP in NWFP, its WANA/FATA.

 

[naseem shah]

Do you know Pakistan has Asia's largest population of kids out of school even more than India with 1/6 the population of India. Last month we clipped our defence budget in economic slowdown, in Pakistan other budget are slashed to increase defence budget.



In reality Pakistan never wanted peace with India, just one month after independence, Pakistan tried to interfere in Hindu majority enclave of Junagarh.

SIPRI military expenditure database


The world's top 5 military spenders in 2011.
Figures sourced from the SIPRI military expenditure database.


Military spending as percentage of GDP
Rank Country Spending ($)[5] % of GDP Per capita ($)
— World total 1,546,529,200,000 2.2%
1 United States 689,591,000,000 4.7% 2,141
2 People's Republic of China 129,272,000,000 2.1% 74
3 Russia 64,123,000,000 3.9% 428
4 France 58,244,000,000 2.3% 879
5 United Kingdom 57,875,000,000 2.6% 893
6 Japan 54,529,000,000 1.0% 401
7 Saudi Arabia 46,219,000,000 10.1% 1,558
8 India 44,282,000,000 2.7% 30
9 Germany 43,478,000,000 1.4% 593
10 Italy 31,946,000,000 1.7% 593
11 Brazil 31,576,000,000 1.6% 142
12 South Korea 28,280,000,000 2.7% 493
13 Canada 23,082,000,000 1.5% 560
14 Australia 22,955,000,000 1.9% 893
15 Turkey 18,687,000,000 2.4% 244
16 United Arab Emirates 16,062,000,000k 6.9% 2,653
17 Israel 15,209,000,000 6.5% 1,882
18 Spain 13,984,000,000 1.0% 398
19 Netherlands 10,945,000,000 1.4% 759
20 Colombia 10,290,000,000 3.6% 198
21 Poland 9,149,000,000 1.9% 285
22 Taiwan 8,888,000,000 2.1% 380
23 Singapore 8,302,000,000 3.7% 1,593
24 Greece 7,502,000,000 2.3% 1,230
25 Iran 7,463,000,000b 1.8%b 89
26 Chile 7,392,000,000 3.2%
27 Norway 7,083,000,000 1.5% 1,245
28 Indonesia 5,220,000,000 0.7%
29 Algeria 5,586,000,000 3.8%
30 Belgium 5,382,000,000 1.2% 525
31 Sweden 5,248,000,000 1.2% 657
32 Portugal 5,213,000,000 2.1%
33 Pakistan 5,160,000,000 2.8% 28
34 Mexico 4,859,000,000 0.5% 48
35 Iraq 4,663,000,000 5.4%
36 Denmark 4,588,000,000 1.4% 804
37 Switzerland 4,392,000,000 0.8% 526
38 Thailand 4,336,000,000 1.9%
39 Kuwait 4,411,000,000 4.4% 1,289
40 Oman 4,047,000,000 9.7%
41 Egypt 3,914,000,000 2.1%
42 Angola 3,774,000,000 4.2%
43 South Africa 3,735,000,000 1.3% 78
44 Finland 3,718,000,000 1.5% 702
45 Austria 3,446,000,000 0.9% 410
46 Ukraine 3,442,000,000 2.9%
47 Malaysia 3,259,000,000 2.0%
48 Morocco 3,256,000,000 3.4%
49 Argentina 3,179,000,000 1.0% 65
50 Venezuela 3,106,000,000 1.3%
51 Czech Republic 2,529,000,000 1.4%
52 Vietnam 2,410,000,000 2.5%
53 Syria 2,236,000,000 4.0%
54 Romania 2,164,000,000 1.4% 114
55 Peru 1,992,000,000 1.4% 74
56 Sudan 1,991,000,000c 3.4%c
57 Nigeria 1,724,000,000 0.9%
58 Lebanon 1,564,000,000 4.1%
59 Philippines 1,486,000,000 0.8%
60 Azerbaijan 1,421,000,000 3.4%
61 Jordan 1,363,000,000 6.1%
62 New Zealand 1,358,000,000 1.2%
63 Ireland 1,354,000,000 0.6%
64 Hungary 1,323,000,000 1.1%
65 Sri Lanka 1,280,000,000 3.5%
66 Kazakhstan 1,227,000,000 1.2%
67 Yemen 1,222,000,000b 3.9%b
68 Bangladesh 1,137,000,000 1.0%
69 Libya 1,100,000,000b 1.2%b
70 Croatia 1,060,000,000 1.8%
71 Slovakia 1,010,000,000 1.4%
72 Serbia 920,000,000 2.3%
73 Slovenia 788,000,000 1.6%
74 Bahrain 731,000,000 3.7% 911
75 Belarus 726,000,000 1.4%
76 Bulgaria 698,000,000 2.0%
77 Kenya 594,000,000 2.0%
78 Tunisia 548,000,000 1.3%
79 Cyprus 510,000,000 1.8%
80 Uruguay 491,000,000 1.6%
81 Eritrea 469,000,000d 20.9%d
82 [6] Georgia 824,023,170 5.1%
83 Lithuania 427,000,000 1.4%
84 Armenia 404,000,000 4.2%
85 Cameroon 368,000,000 1.6%
86 Côte d'Ivoire 353,000,000b 1.5%
87 Botswana 352,000,000 3.0%
88 Ethiopia 338,000,000 1.0%
89 Estonia 336,000,000 2.3%
90 Namibia 329,000,000 3.7%
91 Brunei 327,000,000 3.1% 866
92 Dominican Republic 322,000,000 0.7%
93 Bolivia 314,000,000 2.0%
94 Luxembourg 301,000,000a 0.6% 809
95 Uganda 276,000,000 1.8%
96 Latvia 268,000,000 1.4%
97 Afghanistan 250,000,000j 1.8%
98 Zambia 243,000,000 1.7%
99 Chad 242,000,000 6.2%
100 Honduras 235,000,000 1.5%
101 Turkmenistan 233,000,000e 2.9%e
102 Bosnia and Herzegovina 232,000,000 1.3%
103 Tanzania 217,000,000j 1.1%
104 Senegal 207,000,000 1.6%
104 Nepal 207,000,000 2.0%
106 Albania 201,000,000 0.8%
107 Cambodia 191,000,000j 1.1%
108 Mali 183,000,000 1.9%
109 Kyrgyzstan 167,000,000j 3.6%
110 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 163,000,000 1.0%
111 Guatemala 161,000,000 0.4%
112 Panama 146,000,000e 1.0%e
112 Paraguay 146,000,000 0.9%
114 Republic of Macedonia 145,000,000 1.7%
115 Burkina Faso 140,000,000 1.2%
116 Congo, Republic of the 133,000,000 1.1%b
116 El Salvador 133,000,000 0.7%
118 Ghana 115,000,000 0.7%
118 Mauritania 115,000,000j 3.8%
120 Swaziland 102,000,000 3.1%
121 Guinea 99,900,000f 2.2%f
122 Jamaica 95,200,000 0.9%
123 Zimbabwe 93,800,000 1.9%c
124 Mozambique 86,300,000 0.9%
125 Rwanda 77,200,000 1.4%
126 Uzbekistan 70,100,000d 0.5%d
127 Mongolia 69,500,000 1.2%
128 Benin 65,600,000b 1.0%b
129 Malta 58,800,000 0.7%
130 Madagascar 55,700,000 0.8%
131 Tajikistan 55,400,000f 2.2%f
132 Togo 55,100,000b 1.7%b
133 Central African Republic 52,900,000 1.8%
134 Fiji 50,200,000j 1.7%
135 Niger 49,200,000 0.5%b
136 Malawi 48,600,000a 1.2%a
137 Burundi 46,900,000b 3.8%
138 Lesotho 45,600,000j 2.8%j
139 Nicaragua 44,100,000 0.7%
140 Sierra Leone 42,900,000b 2.4%
141 Papua New Guinea 39,100,000 0.5%
142 Djibouti 36,900,000b 3.7%b
143 Monaco 20,300,000[7] 0.4% 580
144 Moldova 19,000,000 0.5%
145 Laos 18,400,000j 0.3%
146 Guinea-Bissau 15,700,000g 2.1% g
147 Belize 14,900,000 1.2%
148 Mauritius 14,000,000b 0.2%b
149 San Marino 10,700,000[8] 0.9% 368
150 Iceland 9,900,000j 0.1%
151 Cape Verde 8,800,000 0.5%
152 Guyana 8,100,000h 0.8%h
153 Liberia 7,200,000j 0.8%
154 Seychelles 6,600,000 1.2%
155 Gambia 4,600,000a 0.6%a

 

[Secur]

Because it leaves India with icy feet which gives us time to fight the TTP. There is no TTP in NWFP, its WANA/FATA.

Yeah , they amass their troops on the border and then leave without gaining anything ... We saw the " nuclear effect " in '87 , '02 and '08 ... Why wage war if we can do with the deterrent ?

 

[Secur]

Pakistan's defence budget =4.5%

Any link ?

 

[INDIC]

Any link ?

You can calculate it including the salary and pensions of your army not counted in defence budget.

 

[Secur]

You can calculate it including the salary and pensions of your army not counted in defence budget.

I asked for the link , why would I go through the pain of calculating pensions and expenditures ? ... Isn't yours included too ? ... You are the one claiming , where's the link for 4.5% of GDP expenditures of my army ? The Express Tribune would have published half a dozen articles on it if that were the case , do you know how anti-army the half of Pakistani media is ?

 

[INDIC]

I asked for the link , why would I go through the pain of calculating pensions and expenditures ? ... Isn't yours included too ? ... You are the one claiming , where's the link for 4.5% of GDP expenditures of my army ? The Express Tribune would have published half a dozen articles on it if that were the case , do you know how anti-army the half of Pakistani media is ?

No paintake Pakistan's GDP was $204 billion in 2012, you can calculate 4.5% of it. About $6 of it is the alloted defence budget, remaining is the salary and pensions of armed forces. Pakistan de-facto military spending is about $9 billion.

 

[Dubious]

Sir Pakistan is increasing its Nuclear Arsenal and every one knows it and more the Nukes the better it is in fact Pakistan should have a lot more nukes

Pakistan doesnt have THAT many resources, from no $ to no electricity!

 

[Secur]

No paintake Pakistan's GDP was $204 billion in 2012, you can calculate 4.5% of it. About $6 of it is the alloted defence budget, remaining is the salary and pensions of armed forces. Pakistan de-facto military spending is about $9 billion.

I dont need any de facto or de jure thing here , sorry ... Any link from the official budget or any newspaper of Pakistan ?

Pakistan doesnt have THAT many resources, from no $ to no electricity!

Forgive him , mademoiselle ... That Taliban sympathizer doesn't even remotely understand the concept of deterrence nor that of short and long term effects of nuclear fallout ... They just think we need 10 or 20 k nuclear weapons when even the current arsenal is enough to take others down ... Most likely , a propaganda report by media to alarm its people ...

 

[OrionHunter]

With a neighbor like India no one think of anything else because that neighbor of ours have old habit of bullying its neighbor and attacking them and creating turmoil so we need weapons to teach that neighbor a lesson

Oh really? Have you forgotten your surreptitious attacks on India? Have you forgotten or didn't you know of your failed grandiose plans to take Kashmir by force with Operations like Op Gibralter and Op Grand Slam? You guys had more egg on your faces in Kargil! But you just don't seem to get it.

It's not India but Pakistan who has used all their wily tactics to wrest Kashmir by hook or by crook since 1947, but have bitten the dust each time. Even your deep state-sponsored LeT, JeM etc who have been trying their darnedest to take Kashmir by force have eaten humble pie.

So enough of your yarns and denials. You need to put an end to your operational and policy failures as you've already become a laughing stock of the world, especially after Kargil.

 

[trident2010]

The most worrisome part of having more Pakistani nuclear arsenal is that when the Islamic terrorists gets hold of them they will create havoc in all over the world not only in Pakistan.