I know why are u saying this, still go and tell this to ur fellow pakistani Pervez Hoodbhoy - The author who teaches nuclear and particle physics in Islamabad and Lahore.
Pakistans nukes: How many are enough?
- Thread starter Veeru
- Start date
I know why are u saying this, still go and tell this to ur fellow pakistani Pervez Hoodbhoy - The author who teaches nuclear and particle physics in Islamabad and Lahore.
Areesh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 45,157
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I know why are u saying this, still go and tell this to ur fellow pakistani Pervez Hoodbhoy - The author who teaches nuclear and particle physics in Islamabad and Lahore.
Why don't you go and satisfy Arundhati Roy over IOK issue than advising me to teach Hoodbhoy over nuclear deterrence issue. She is also a fellow Bharati. Isn't she?
duhastmish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- -4
i really wish both country leaders and these arm chair warrior - get together in their respective capital city.
and right at that moment - world leaders should friggin bomb the hell out of them.
so that they cant brag about their nuke weapons.
these people who talk about nuking dont desrve to have nuke .
nowoder - the world think its unsafe for its existence - if you have nuke in south east asia,
why people are so obsessed with nuclear weapon. i think mullah and mujahidin are smarter than those idiots because - stones are better choice than nuclear.
oh asim you coutldnt resist it bro, this is the first stupid post by you. of all the people - u i can still bet on not being a war monger and world finisher. but we all have our moments
and right at that moment - world leaders should friggin bomb the hell out of them.
so that they cant brag about their nuke weapons.
these people who talk about nuking dont desrve to have nuke .
nowoder - the world think its unsafe for its existence - if you have nuke in south east asia,
why people are so obsessed with nuclear weapon. i think mullah and mujahidin are smarter than those idiots because - stones are better choice than nuclear.
oh asim you coutldnt resist it bro, this is the first stupid post by you. of all the people - u i can still bet on not being a war monger and world finisher. but we all have our moments
LEGENDARY WARRIOR
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 0
@ Asim Aquil
Sir, 1000 is tooooo much. . . the only countries falling in 1000 nukes category are U.S.A and Russia. . .
- - As far as missiles needed for targeting India is concerned; I think we don't need more than 300. In a nuclear war (I pray it never happens) you don't need to target each and every city of your enemy's country. . . Even if you put down the capital, it is more than enough to stop a marching force. .
Sir, 1000 is tooooo much. . . the only countries falling in 1000 nukes category are U.S.A and Russia. . .
- - As far as missiles needed for targeting India is concerned; I think we don't need more than 300. In a nuclear war (I pray it never happens) you don't need to target each and every city of your enemy's country. . . Even if you put down the capital, it is more than enough to stop a marching force. .
nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
my estimate is that we need at most 200* warheads & the remaining expertise/finance to be channelled elsewhere [& not necessarily defence].
However, one has to realise that warheads without proper delivery systems are time-ticking bombs in ones own territory. Provisions must be made to mobilise & disperse warheads in land & sea as well
* I assumed no MIRV capability [one warhead per missile]. If Pakistan attains & go for MIRV deployment; the no. warheads per delivery system must be multiplied with the proposed baseline e.g if we have MIRV capability of a modest three warhead per delivery system no. of warheads then needed be 3*200=600. Significance of no. of delivery vehicles outweigh the no. of warheads
However, one has to realise that warheads without proper delivery systems are time-ticking bombs in ones own territory. Provisions must be made to mobilise & disperse warheads in land & sea as well
* I assumed no MIRV capability [one warhead per missile]. If Pakistan attains & go for MIRV deployment; the no. warheads per delivery system must be multiplied with the proposed baseline e.g if we have MIRV capability of a modest three warhead per delivery system no. of warheads then needed be 3*200=600. Significance of no. of delivery vehicles outweigh the no. of warheads
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Ok. Talking in professional terms the number of warheads would depends upon the type of targets that are chosen by Pakistan. If the targets are 'counterforce' the number would be less, if Pakistan decides to go for 'countervalue' targets, we would be requiring much higher numbers.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Usual Military and nuclear program bashing by the author.
1. Economic and terrorism problems:
The nuclear program, the weapons related one at least, was never meant to resolve Pakistan's economic and development issues, and I know no one who believes/ believed it could.
Nor are Pakistan's economic and terrorism related issues caused by the nuclear program. Those issues exist because of poor governance, corruption and an unwillingness of the leadership to enact various fiscal and governance reforms. Terrorism could be tackled much better had we an autonomous LEA and prosecution service, trusted by both the ruling parties and opposition.
2. Cost:
Pakistan loses over $3 billion dollars per year on its largest public sector companies. That is around the same amount as the entire defence budget, let alone just the nuclear program. The combined cost to Pakistan from these public sector companies, mismanagement of various other ministries and projects, and the resulting poor development of infrastructure, educational and health facilities likely costs Pakistan tens of billions of dollars every year. The nuclear program is not responsible for this.
3. Security:
Pakistan's nuclear weapons have in fact played a very large role in its security, in preventing wars imposed by India, as well as preventing the US from pushing into Pakistan and destabilizing it. Were it not for nuclear weapons, why would the US treat Pakistan any differently from Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. While the US would not likely invade Pakistan after the fiasco in Iraq, they certainly would not think twice of launching air strikes where they pleased, or being too concerned about Pakistan's stability.
So in terms of Pakistan's security, the payoff from the nuclear program has been huge.
1. Economic and terrorism problems:
The nuclear program, the weapons related one at least, was never meant to resolve Pakistan's economic and development issues, and I know no one who believes/ believed it could.
Nor are Pakistan's economic and terrorism related issues caused by the nuclear program. Those issues exist because of poor governance, corruption and an unwillingness of the leadership to enact various fiscal and governance reforms. Terrorism could be tackled much better had we an autonomous LEA and prosecution service, trusted by both the ruling parties and opposition.
2. Cost:
Pakistan loses over $3 billion dollars per year on its largest public sector companies. That is around the same amount as the entire defence budget, let alone just the nuclear program. The combined cost to Pakistan from these public sector companies, mismanagement of various other ministries and projects, and the resulting poor development of infrastructure, educational and health facilities likely costs Pakistan tens of billions of dollars every year. The nuclear program is not responsible for this.
3. Security:
Pakistan's nuclear weapons have in fact played a very large role in its security, in preventing wars imposed by India, as well as preventing the US from pushing into Pakistan and destabilizing it. Were it not for nuclear weapons, why would the US treat Pakistan any differently from Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. While the US would not likely invade Pakistan after the fiasco in Iraq, they certainly would not think twice of launching air strikes where they pleased, or being too concerned about Pakistan's stability.
So in terms of Pakistan's security, the payoff from the nuclear program has been huge.
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Let's not fool ourselves. It's because of these nukes that people around Pakistan listen (though not worthy enough) to us. No wonder the Akhand Bharat dream ride has gone for a six and the Limited War took its place. No doubts we can tell the US today that we will not go in NWA till the time we deem it necessary. No wonder we talk to india on equal terms when it comes to military and sit on the same tables. No wonder the US didnt come rushing at us with F 117s when we differed. No wonder we can tell the US to wind up it MSR and go beg Russia for it. No wonder even today after being declared a failed-state, exporter of terrorism, being called the most dangerous place in the world, we still stand high and keep our national interests first.
Yeah....... Let's not fool yourselves if as per ur own admission people are listening to u then why go on making more and more nukes????
What's the valid logic behind it??
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Yeah....... Let's not fool yourselves if as per ur own admission people are listening to u then why go on making more and more nukes????
What's the valid logic behind it??
Duh......?!!
The nukes are not causing economic problems but they are adding to it the real reason of ur problem is the mentality as said by ur leaders "Ghaas khayenge pur atom bomb banayenge". They will go on spending on arm race be it nukes, submarines, tanks etc. etc.
a. Its not about costs only its more about mentality the suicidal tendency. Like "Chahe Apni dono aankhe phut jaye pur dusre ki ek phodni hai"
b. And for the PSUs they are providing jobs to thousands and thousands of Pakistanis and keeping pakistan less dependent on foreign nations.
You can't have the cake and eat it too.
At one side you are saying that nukes have helped you and done their bit. If it is so then stop making more and more. What will u get from them?
JonAsad
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,178
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Yeah....... Let's not fool yourselves if as per ur own admission people are listening to u then why go on making more and more nukes????
What's the valid logic behind it??
To make people listen more and more
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Why Pakistan is producing more nukes? Allow me to make a wild but calculated guess.
Well let's assume for moment that this is true and Pakistan is infact making more of these nukes, so in Nuclear Strategy there's a Deterrence Theory known as Minimal Deterrence which has been adopted by india and Pakistan - we call it Minimum Credible Deterrence in indo-Pak scenario.
The Minimum Credible Deterrence Strategy calls for a No First Use (NFU) doctrine i.e. the mission of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear enemy by making the cost of a first strike unacceptably high that's to say, to show a credible assurance that if a nuclear strike takes place against us it would automatically trigger a retaliatory strike on massive scale.
Also we all know that india has a NFU policy i.e. india would not be the one to initiate the strikes, but then it makes me wonder what if india is actually more scared then it shows and has changed its NFU policy into No First Use Against Non-Nuclear Weapon States :
The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament. We have made it clear that while we need nuclear weapons for our own security, it is our goal to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, and that we are ready to undertake the necessary obligations to achieve that goal in a time-bound programme agreed to and implemented by all nuclear weapon and other states.
- Shivshankar Menon, ex NSA
Shivshankar Menon at NDC (Speech)
Now keeping above in view we can conclude that india is indeed bluffing.
No shyt!
Pakistan is NOT a Non-Nuclear Weapon State. india can infact initiate the First strike!
Now this makes me wonder, from where would the indian members get the cheeks to ask me why Pakistan is making MORE nukes..?? hmmmm....i know the answer; they are shyt scared.
Well let's assume for moment that this is true and Pakistan is infact making more of these nukes, so in Nuclear Strategy there's a Deterrence Theory known as Minimal Deterrence which has been adopted by india and Pakistan - we call it Minimum Credible Deterrence in indo-Pak scenario.
The Minimum Credible Deterrence Strategy calls for a No First Use (NFU) doctrine i.e. the mission of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear enemy by making the cost of a first strike unacceptably high that's to say, to show a credible assurance that if a nuclear strike takes place against us it would automatically trigger a retaliatory strike on massive scale.
Also we all know that india has a NFU policy i.e. india would not be the one to initiate the strikes, but then it makes me wonder what if india is actually more scared then it shows and has changed its NFU policy into No First Use Against Non-Nuclear Weapon States :
The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament. We have made it clear that while we need nuclear weapons for our own security, it is our goal to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, and that we are ready to undertake the necessary obligations to achieve that goal in a time-bound programme agreed to and implemented by all nuclear weapon and other states.
- Shivshankar Menon, ex NSA
Shivshankar Menon at NDC (Speech)
Now keeping above in view we can conclude that india is indeed bluffing.
No shyt!
Pakistan is NOT a Non-Nuclear Weapon State. india can infact initiate the First strike!
Now this makes me wonder, from where would the indian members get the cheeks to ask me why Pakistan is making MORE nukes..?? hmmmm....i know the answer; they are shyt scared.
Similar threads
- Article
