Pakistan’s nukes: How many are enough?

[Last Hope]

No, not at all!
We need to have around 600, includins donzens of ICBMs, to keep our possible victims (India and Israel) under pressure.

 

[Hulk]

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.

Scared, you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) Your nukes are just high maintenece toys which will never be used.
2) Even if you use them you will not only make India but the world your enemy.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Nuclear weapon is an important deterrence! However, once a country becomes 'nuclear power', offensive/limited war rhetoric looks good on paper.
The war is fought through proxies, internally.

Considering that, Pakistan has lost this war.

Country is bankrupt--economy
Terrorism.
Victim and offender do not know why they are killing each other.
Illiteracy at it's peak.
Corruption in all segments of the society including military.
Electricity, gas, patrol, water shortage.
Poverty level.
Independence movement in Balochistan.

Propaganda machine: You cannot label everyone a 'BLA goon'. There is a local resistance too, though a very few percentage.

Feel free to add.

At this point, Pakistan should think about her economy and corruption regardless of politicians or military.

I think that if we produce 12 nuclear weapons a year, we should limit it to 8--Economy should be on top with education.

 

[Xeric]

Scared, you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) Your nukes are just high maintenece toys which will never be used.
2) Even if you use them you will not only make India but the world your enemy.

i was expecting someone with more insight into Nuclear Strategy to answer this.

Sho..sho...!

 

[Xeric]

Nuclear weapon is an important deterrence! However, once a country becomes 'nuclear power', offensive/limited war rhetoric looks good on paper.

Correct.

The war is fought through proxies, internally.

Not necessarily. How about no fighting at all?

Considering that, Pakistan has lost this war.

May be lost a battle or two, not the war as of yet.

Country is bankrupt--economy

Blame the govt.

Terrorism.

It's a universal phenomenon now. NO ONE's safe today.

Victim and offender do not know why they are killing each other.

Believe me they know it very well. Or else how can you cash such success in such a short time?

Illiteracy at it's peak.

Take up the case with GoP.

Corruption in all segments of the society including military.

First of all this has nothing to do with loosing a war. Still, say thaks to media from keeping a strict eye on everyone, we all have seen the worth of the present govt, so dont vote for it the next time. And the court of inquiry has been completed and put up to the COAS for decision in that case having involvement of Army officers in NLC scandal.

Electricity, gas, patrol, water shortage.
Poverty level.

Blame the present govt for it. Also blame the previous govts for it. We vote for those bastards who cant reach a consensus over a damn Dam!

Independence movement in Balochistan.

Effectively crushed. No more youth is going to pick arms against the state now. And the guud part is, this has been achieved not through guns but education and realization! Say thanks to the Army, once more.

Propaganda machine: You cannot label everyone a 'BLA goon'. There is a local resistance too, though a very few percentage.

Wrong thread!

Feel free to add.

How about subtraction?

At this point, Pakistan should think about her economy and corruption regardless of politicians or military.

Agreed.

I think that if we produce 12 nuclear weapons a year, we should limit it to 8--Economy should be on top with education.

The defence budget has been on decline since long now. Even with the participation in the current war the military has not asked for more. Waste some time on google and you'll know how and why.

 

[T-Faz]

"even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bombs"

Well, seems like he made that statement for a valid reason.

Unfortunate though that he could not see his end. When arrested he asked, 'Has Zia been arrested too'.

If we continue this way, the problems that persist will not only destroy the nation but also render these weapons useless.

The first and foremost responsibility of the state would be to elevate the nation economically, once economically we are moving forward, we can concentrate on increasing our defense budgets but the concentration should be on defense and not offense.

If we continue to engage in arms build up while the nation burns, the whole state would suffer continually until its collapse.

Reagan used this to great effect against USSR.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

"Not necessarily. How about no fighting at all?"

Talk to the hawks on both sides.

"First of all this has nothing to do with loosing a war. Still, say thaks to media from keeping a strict eye on everyone, we all have seen the worth of the present govt, so dont vote for it the next time. And the court of inquiry has been completed and put up to the COAS for decision in that case having involvement of Army officers in NLC scandal."

The tale of ‘general’ Usmani
By Ayesha Siddiqa
Published: January 29, 2011

ayesha.siddiqa@tribune.com.pk

This is not the story of Lt-General (retd) Muzaffar Usmani of the 1999 martial law fame, but that of an ordinary travel agent from Bahawalpur, Waqar Usmani, who eventually came to be known as ‘general’ Usmani due to his close ties with former General Pervez Musharraf.

Waqar Usmani’s claim to fame was his friendship with Musharraf, when the latter was posted as a brigadier in Bahawalpur. Usmani was a generous provider and friend and this endeared him to the brigadier. To Musharraf’s credit, he remembered these favours as he rose through the ranks to become the army chief and then the president of the country (Pervez Musharraf and Asif Ali Zardari seem to have a common trait of fondness for people who helped them during less fortunate times). When Usmani’s daughter got married, the Bahawalpur corps commander was asked to attend since the president could not go himself.

Musharraf tried to take care of his friend by letting him use the resources of the army and the state. Once, during Musharraf’s visit to Bahawalpur, Usmani was flown on state expense from Karachi. Moreover, he always had a colonel on his heels. The man was also given a lease for a few hundred acres of state land in Cholistan. Some might argue that this wasn’t a special favour because this was, and remains, illegally-occupied land which the army leased out to private parties in the name of the welfare of soldiers. The lessees, however, do not have any documentation because the army itself does not have any paperwork to prove its legal ownership. What to talk of the fortress stadium or other controversial land uses, which were recently debated in parliament, the Public Accounts Committee will find more explosive material in Cholistan, an area where the army has really spread itself.

Our ‘General’ Usmani was lucky for having known the other general, Pervez Musharraf, else he wouldn’t have benefitted from this land-lease system. Ordinary folks of the area don’t know that despite the land being in Bahawalpur, it’s the Pano Aqil corps that controls the leasing system. Earlier, the Lahore corps did this task. As per official records, the army is in unlawful occupation of 99,865 acres of land in Cholistan. This is over and above the lands the service acquired under the 1912 Land Act. This includes over 5,000 acres of land which belongs to the forest department.

The illegally occupied land is then leased out to private parties which comprises mainly of big landowners or businessmen in the area, or from outside. For instance, some army officers (retired and serving), who were tactically appointed as managing directors of the Cholistan Development Authority during the previous decade, have acquired such land and have become significant stakeholders. One must not forget that rules do not allow the sanction of Cholistan land to anyone other than the local Cholistanis. Not to mention the millions of landless peasants who don’t get land.

Even if the ordinary Cholistanis or the poor folk get land, they may not be as lucky as Musharraf’s friend and the other influential lessees who get access to free flow of water. In the area around Liaquatpur, the army ensures its lessees uninterrupted supply of water which is illegally diverted from the share of canal water allocated for Sadiqabad and Rahimyar Khan. The army and lessees don’t even pay any water rates or taxes on this land. The service has also sublet 3,000 acres legally leased to it for operational purposes. There appears to be a ‘crawling pattern’ of the army’s occupation of state land. Every year, units push the exercise area deep into Cholistan, which releases hundreds of acres of land from the army’s operational use that was part of the exercise area the previous year. A lot of this area is then leased out.

While the land occupation story continues, it seems that Waqar Usmani has disappeared from the scene after his friend, who transformed him from a travel agent to a landowner, left the country. Usmani and many other beneficiaries await his return to devour more.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 30th, 2011.

Just one example of many.

"Effectively crushed. No more youth is going to pick arms against the state now. And the guud part is, this has been achieved not through guns but education and realization! Say thanks to the Army, once more."

Thank you.

"How about subtraction?"

Tell me something which you can subtract from the list.

 

[Xeric]

@Saad

Let's live in the present. Do you actually think with the advent of free media and an educated and dynamic civil society the 'bad' generals would be spared as they have been in the past?

And as for your post, please, you can post some more credible and sensible writer than Ayesha. She writes as there's only one institution in Pakistan and that's the Army, and nothing else. And that, all the evils revolve around this sole institution. i would have paid more attention to her articles had she been versatile enough and had included everyone into her 'kill' list, but since her enemy is the Army alone, i dont feel like exempting the prejudice that prevails in her writeups. So thanks, but no thanks. Oh BTW, i was talking of REAL generals, not the one being referred to by Ayesha.


@ T-Faz.

i agree, but dont you think the defence budget has indeed shrunk?

2.5 % of the GDP with an ongoing war, what else do you people want?

How about increasing the budget X times for the sole reason of operations in FATAistan? Would that had been correct?

Now if you want that the defence budget you further be lowered, well then we'll be doing it at the cost of our security.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Mentality has nothing to do with it - if anything, the statement by Bhutto is reflective of a positive mentality - that Pakistan will sacrifice whatever is needed to achieve its goals. We need that kind of mentality in terms of economic, educational and industrial reforms. And while you accept that the nukes are not causing economic problems, the author does disingenuously make that link, and it is important to point out that the nuclear program is not responsible for Pakistan's economic or security problems.

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"

Again, mentality, even if along the lines of what you claim, has nothing to do with the economic problems facing Pakistan. The costs I outlined from the civilian side can be easily saved and re-applied towards education, health, infrastructure, and provide a huge multiplier effect on both economic growth, jobs, and creating the brainpower and infrastructure to fuel growth in the future.

So the problem in Pakistan is not the nuclear program, but bad governance and economic mismanagement.

b. And for the PSUs they are providing jobs to thousands and thousands of Pakistanis and keeping pakistan less dependent on foreign nations.

Those 'thousands of jobs' are frequently doled out to political loyalists and cronies, who serve to make these entities inefficient, corrupt and loss making. By covering the cost of those jobs and losing billions of dollars every year, we are failing to invest in the country as I outlined above, and reap much bigger benefits. And in any case, privatization or public-private partnerships in these entities will not result in all jobs being lost, just the unnecessary and incompetent ones, and job losses will be short to medium term. In the long run the benefits from saving billions and reinvesting them, and more efficient PSE's, will result in hundreds of thousands of more jobs.

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?

Better warheads - more powerful, smaller, render any 'secure Pakistan's nukes' plans by any outside entity useless. 'Securing' a handful of nukes by an external force is perhaps within the realms of possibility - securing several hundred nukes, dispersed across the country, or taking them out in a preemptive strike, is not very feasible at all.

Advances in ABM capabilities by hostile nations also necessitate continuing R&D, modernization and expansion of the arsenal - ABM's can be overcome through a larger number of missiles/warheads launched at the same target.

 

[T-Faz]

@ T-Faz.

i agree, but dont you think the defence budget has indeed shrunk?

2.5 % of the GDP with an ongoing war, what else do you people want?

How about increasing the budget X times for the sole reason of operations in FATAistan? Would that had been correct?

Now if you want that the defence budget you further be lowered, well then we'll be doing it at the cost of our security.

The defense budget has indeed shrunk and would continually go down because of the weakening value of rupee and other economic factors.

Some people think that the defense budget is increasing when in reality it is going down. That is why I want the state to concentrate on economy because if it continues to slide down, the defense budget will only be negatively effected while the costs increase.

My point is that certain aspects of the defense budget should be put on hold temporarily while the operations in FATA are ongoing.

During this period, the economy should be elevated to a level where the state is able to continue funding our those aspects.

Its all in the benefit of the state and subsequently the army itself when the nation is doing well enough to continually meet the increased security demands of Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My point is that certain aspects of the defense budget should be put on hold temporarily while the operations in FATA are ongoing.

What aspects should be put on hold?

Can't we save many magnitudes more money through some of the reforms on the civilian side I outlined in my previous posts?

Not to mention make the lives of millions of Pakistanis, that depend on products and services from those PSE's, less miserable?

It appears to me that the optimal solution is right there, but people are tip toeing around it and just bashing the military and strategic programs.

 

[Xeric]

The defense budget has indeed shrunk and would continually go down because of the weakening value of rupee and other economic factors.

Some people think that the defense budget is increasing when in reality it is going down. That is why I want the state to concentrate on economy because if it continues to slide down, the defense budget will only be negatively effected while the costs increase.

My point is that certain aspects of the defense budget should be put on hold temporarily while the operations in FATA are ongoing.

During this period, the economy should be elevated to a level where the state is able to continue funding our those aspects.

Its all in the benefit of the state and subsequently the army itself when the nation is doing well enough to continually meet the increased security demands of Pakistan.

i agree.

But lowering the defence budget vis-a-vis putting on hold certain projects would not bring the economy back on track, because the economy is not suffering at the hands of the defence budget but as Agno have correctly pointed that the reason behind it is corruption, poor management, $3 billion annually on Railways, Pak Steel, PIA the high cost required to maintain a huge Cabinet etc.

We cut the above issues loose and we may come back on track.

 

[DV RULES]

Pakistan’s nukes: How many are enough?

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

Published: February 5, 2011

It is well known that there are two operational un-safeguarded plutonium-producing reactors at Khushab (with a third one under construction). PHOTO: EPA/FILE

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.

The author teaches nuclear and particle physics in Islamabad and Lahore

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2011.

Pakistan?s nukes: How many are enough? – The Express Tribune

irrelevant article.

 

[DV RULES]

1000 enough for minimum balance, Where question about economy then let me say that economy must be strong but not at cost of defense.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

1000 enough for minimum balance, Where question about economy then let me say that economy must be strong but not at cost of defense.

1000 nuk's ? common man..do you really tink pakistan needs that much for minimum deterrence ? ?