Pakistan to show missile muscle

[Pandora]

Why flag still flying after missle hits

It wasnt armed so just an impact threw some dust in the air. Secondly Nasr is a balliistic missile with CEP 5-10m so a direct impact on target is highly improbable unless it is a cruise missile.

 

[Kapwercs]

It wasnt armed so just an impact threw some dust in the air. Secondly Nasr is a balliistic missile with CEP 5-10m so a direct impact on target is highly improbable unless it is a cruise missile.

Very impressive . A ballistic missile without terminal guidance having cep of 5 to 10 m !

 

[Pandora]

Very impressive . A ballistic missile without terminal guidance having cep of 5 to 10 m !

Its a tactical missile so that small CEP is not uncommon. Even older versions of tactical missile had very smal CEP. Well considering the purpose of missile CEP hardly comes into equation.

 

[ejaz007]

Pakistan test-fires short-range ballistic missile
By: The Associated Press, July 5, 2017 (Photo Credit: Rizwan Tabassum/AFP via Getty Images)

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan says it has successfully tested a short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The military said Wednesday the NASR is a high-precision weapons system with the ability for quick deployment and a range of 70 kilometers, or 43.5 miles. It added that this system will augment credible deterrence against prevailing threats more effectively.

Army chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, who was at the launch, said that Pakistan will go to any lengths to ensure regional peace and stability and underlined the missiles are meant to stress that war is not an option.

He also said that Pakistan's strategic capability is a guarantee of peace against a highly militarized and belligerent neighbor — an obvious reference to archenemy India.

The two became nuclear powers in the late 1990s.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/pakistan-test-fires-short-range-ballistic-missile

 

[war&peace]

SLV?

Recent tests of the liquid fuelled Ghauri series of missiles after a long pause indicate that SLV is being brought out of the shelves. PSLV shouldn't be such herculean task for Pakistan. It is just the budget that has been the main constraint.

 

[DJ_Viper]

Pak Army(Government and other entities as well) don't see US as an enemy. There's definitely a difference in opinion on various geopolitical issues and that gap has definitely grown with both nation's interests diverging over time but they r not hostile towards each other..

No offense, even the Russians or the Chinese have to think ten times and assess their actions against the US to not be officially considered as "enemies". So Pakistan is no one on the list to be honest. There is a small team within the Dept. of State I believe, and there are like 4 people that handle Pakistan. So to Pakistan, these things are a big deal, to US, its not, Pakistan is a small country (yet important due to Afghan conflict).

So based on the reality, its not that Pakistan considers the US an enemy, it was more of a statement of power and preparedness that "we are ready for the worst". What's worst? Its anyone's guess

Here, another thread on what I am saying, right here on PDF:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mcca...g-mood-in-washington-towards-pakistan.505102/

 

[Straight Razor]

We need ICBMs now. Even North Korea has conducted successfull tests. The gameplan is changing. If we dont change with it we will be at the losing end. India is spending billions on rafales s400 and other ammuniation what are we doing? The army is now a land developer and politicians dont know anything outside panama.

 

[unleashed]

unfortunately not a slbm or icbm

No need for now, as we can target any part of India with current missiles

 

[Straight Razor]

No need for now, as we can target any part of India with current missiles

Start thinking america. The sooner the better.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

No offense, even the Russians or the Chinese have to think ten times and assess their actions against the US to not be officially considered as "enemies". So Pakistan is no one on the list to be honest. There is a big department within the Dept. of State and there are like 4 people that handle Pakistan. So to Pakistan, these things are a big deal, to US, its not, Pakistan is a small country (yet important due to Afghan conflict).

So based on the reality, its not that Pakistan considers the US an enemy, it was more of a statement of power and preparedness that "we are ready for the worst". What's worst? Its anyone's guess

Here, another thread on what I am saying, right here on PDF:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mcca...g-mood-in-washington-towards-pakistan.505102/

The worst is the US invasion of Pakistan and since US has been at war for 222 out of 239 years of it's existence that something scenario is a very real possibility that Pakistan cannot ignore.

BTW the biggest blunder we ever made was to side with you against the soviet union during the Afghan war, there seriously needs to be a power to keep you yankees in check.

 

[Khanate]

No offense, even the Russians or the Chinese have to think ten times and assess their actions against the US to not be officially considered as "enemies". So Pakistan is no one on the list to be honest. There is a big department within the Dept. of State and there are like 4 people that handle Pakistan. So to Pakistan, these things are a big deal, to US, its not, Pakistan is a small country (yet important due to Afghan conflict).

A country of 210 million people isn't "small" by any stretch of the imagination.

What's worst? Its anyone's guess

I'm predicting a couple of late night tweets before the good President Trump resumes his war on US media.

The worst is the US invasion of Pakistan and since US has been at war for 222 out of 239 years of it's existence that something scenario is a very real possibility that Pakistan cannot ignore.

Not sure which planet you live on but there isn't going to be an invasion of Pakistan. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

BTW the biggest blunder we ever made was to side with you against the soviet union during the Afghan war, there seriously needs to be a power to keep you yankees in check.

It was the right decision. USSR was in bed with India and Pakistan faced encirclement at the time hence we opted to resist. The situation is somewhat similar today given India's presence in Afghanistan hence Pakistan is resisting. This has nothing to do with United States. If it was only United States, Pakistan wouldn't hesitate to cut a deal like Mushrraf did. The calculus changes once India jumps in. And there is no need for name-calling. You can exchange ideas and humour while remaining civil.

 

[Cookie Monster]

No offense, even the Russians or the Chinese have to think ten times and assess their actions against the US to not be officially considered as "enemies". So Pakistan is no one on the list to be honest. There is a big department within the Dept. of State and there are like 4 people that handle Pakistan. So to Pakistan, these things are a big deal, to US, its not, Pakistan is a small country (yet important due to Afghan conflict).

So based on the reality, its not that Pakistan considers the US an enemy, it was more of a statement of power and preparedness that "we are ready for the worst". What's worst? Its anyone's guess

Here, another thread on what I am saying, right here on PDF:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mcca...g-mood-in-washington-towards-pakistan.505102/

So u r viewing this missile test in context of McCain's statement? U think Pakistan is flexing its military muscle to say "we r parepared for the worst"(to quote u). U didn't mention what that "worst" is. This "worst" is not sanctions or end of US aid or breaking of diplomatic ties or a trade embargo bcuz none of those can be countered by flexing military muscle.

So the "worst" u r suggesting in light of flexing military muscle only leaves a few options all of which involve some kind of military confrontation...and since US is the most powerful country in the world no country with the exception of maybe Russia and China can militarily stand up to US. Hence any such show of military might is pointless.

So again I don't see what that show of might to the US would achieve. When US launched its WoT it basically told Musharraf either u r with us or against us and guess how the Pak military responded? Certainly not by a show of force to say "we r prepared for the worst". Therefore I don't think these missile tests are a response to McCain's statement...it's just simply a test to check for the improved performance and new parameters just like how many other nations do it. The timing was most likely a coincidence.

 

[DJ_Viper]

A country of 210 million people isn't "small" by any stretch of the imagination.

I told you how the US looks at Pakistan. Had it not been due to two conflicts back to back, really, what exactly has Pakistan offered to the world outside of problems and military dictatorships?? Which resulted in many more problems for Pakistanis, including children who were given machine guns back in Gen. Zia's dictatorship. Yes, we worked with him because we needed him (answering your future post you'd write to forget about everything else I wrote on here).

But arming College going children in a to be a-very-moderate, forward looking Pakistan of its time (better than South Korea back then) turned your country's culture into an intense, extremist like culture which then gave way to real extremism. Can you count how many young men and high school going children have been killed in places like Karachi due to that decision of arming them? So truthfully, the US appoints three people to oversee Pakistan. It doesn't matter if you have 200 million people or 500 million.

At the end of the day, you haven't produced anything for the world to consume (like Israeli tech, Indian IT and medical labor in large numbers, Chinese products, Malaysian semiconductors, Turkish tourism and tech). I am not writing this to sound arrogant. I am showing you my displeasure of what you guys have made out of your nation, which I know, has a ton of talent!

So instead of worrying about your population size, create political stability, and produce something, your nation is very talented but its been rotten up by military coupe's and the fake myth that civilians are dumb and stupid and can't grow trees, let alone run a country.

There is no nation on this planet that can say "we grew economically because we were ruled by the military". Corruption and all that stuff is everywhere, you need a stable political system to grow your country, and the economy and produce products that the world will consume and will know that "made in Pakistan" means something.

I know many won't like my statement, but I am speaking of the reality sadly.

So u r viewing this missile test in context of McCain's statement? U think Pakistan is flexing its military muscle to say "we r parepared for the worst"(to quote u). U didn't mention what that "worst" is. This "worst" is not sanctions or end of US aid or breaking of diplomatic ties or a trade embargo bcuz none of those can be countered by flexing military muscle.

So the "worst" u r suggesting in light of flexing military muscle only leaves a few options all of which involve some kind of military confrontation...and since US is the most powerful country in the world no country with the exception of maybe Russia and China can militarily stand up to US. Hence any such show of military might is pointless.

So again I don't see what that show of might to the US would achieve. When US launched its WoT it basically told Musharraf either u r with us or against us and guess how the Pak military responded? Certainly not by a show of force to say "we r prepared for the worst". Therefore I don't think these missile tests are a response to McCain's statement...it's just simply a test to check for the improved performance and new parameters just like how many other nations do it. The timing was most likely a coincidence.

Reading your statement, I think you know very well what the "worst" has always been in Pakistani military's minds. If you don't remember the history, go back to Gen. Kiyani's statement he made after that check post incident. But something tells me you know exactly what the "worst case" means.

 

[MadDog]

No offense, even the Russians or the Chinese have to think ten times and assess their actions against the US to not be officially considered as "enemies". So Pakistan is no one on the list to be honest. There is a big department within the Dept. of State and there are like 4 people that handle Pakistan. So to Pakistan, these things are a big deal, to US, its not, Pakistan is a small country (yet important due to Afghan conflict).

So based on the reality, its not that Pakistan considers the US an enemy, it was more of a statement of power and preparedness that "we are ready for the worst". What's worst? Its anyone's guess

Here, another thread on what I am saying, right here on PDF:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mcca...g-mood-in-washington-towards-pakistan.505102/

Senator McCain's comments depict the reality i.e Pakistan and US have multiple nodes of divergence when it comes to regional geopolitics especially over the conundrum of Afghanistan. I agree with you somewhat that US sees Pakistan in the context of Afghanistan, however, Chinese presence in Gwadar coupled with Chinese base in Djibouti would give China unprecedented strategic outreach into Indian Ocean. So, that is another development which isn't in the interests of US. I will break down some points over recent geopolitical and geoeconomic developments:

1) US doesn't possess the leverage it possessed before 2014-15. The economic aid given to Pakistan is around $500-600 million. Pakistan itself offered $500 million to Afghanistan and spent another $500 million on infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Pakistan's economy size has grown to $300 Billion plus, so stopping that aid won't have much influence.

2) China's master stroke of realpolitik is CPEC, which has given it unprecedented economic influence over Pakistan, coupled with shareholding of Chinese companies in critically important institutions eg: KESC or Pakistan Stock Exchange. Add to this the acquisition of chinese defence equipment especially the deal for 8 S-26/ Type 39 Yuan class submarines. Chinese are also interested in Afghan mediation as reflected from recent shuttle diplomacy.

3) Pakistan's membership of the elite SCO club originally formed to check NATO's eastward creep is another critical development. SCO members usually hold military exercises with Russian led CSTO military alliance after every few years. Pakistan has also been trying to get observer status in CSTO, recently Pakistan's attempt was scuttled by an Armenian veto. Membership of SCO will further improve the evolving bilateral relations with Russia, which itself seeks a bigger role in Afghanistan due to emergence of IS-K and has hosted two multilateral mediation conferences in Moscow. US boycotted those conferences. Russian ambassador has also hinted at aligning Russia's EEU with CPEC.

4) Putin's envoy to Kabul, Zamir Kabulov has stated that Afghan Taliban are a "national force" and Russia sees them as an effective bulwark against emergence of IS-K. Afghan Taliban delegation also visited Beijing recently. Russia and China in the first trilateral meeting on Afghanistan called out for removing the names of Afghan Taliban leaders from UN's sanctions list.

5) Couple these with Pakistan's testing of Second Strike capability and MIRV capability. It has also given Pakistan more strategic regional clout and stature.

All these factors reflect, that Pakistan may not be coerced the way it used to be coerced before 2014 or during the PPP era as regional dynamics are changing really quickly. However, Pakistan and US would both prefer a working relationship with each other for some kind of regional approach towards resolving the Afghan fiasco.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I told you how the US looks at Pakistan. Had it not been due to two conflicts back to back, really, what exactly has Pakistan offered to the world outside of problems and military dictatorships?? Which resulted in many more problems for Pakistanis, including children who were given machine guns back in Gen. Zia's dictatorship. Yes, we worked with him because we needed him (answering your future post you'd write to forget about everything else I wrote on here).

But arming College going children to a turning a very moderate, forward looking Pakistan of its time (better than South Korea back then) to an intense, extremist like culture which then gave way to real extremism. Can you count how many young men and high school going children have been killed in places like Karachi due to that decision of arming them? So truthfully, the US appoints three people to oversee Pakistan. It doesn't matter if you have 200 million people or 500 million. At the end of the day, you haven't produced anything for the world to consume (like Israeli tech, Indian IT and medical labor in large numbers, Chinese products, Malaysian semiconductors, Turkishtourism and tech). I am not writing this to sound arrogant. I am showing you my displeasure of what you have made out of your nation, which I know, has a ton of talent! So instead of worrying about your population size, create political stability, and produce something, your nation is very talented but its been rotten up by the coupe's and the military drama. There is no nation on this planet that can say "we grew because we were ruled by the military". Corruption and all that stuff is everywhere, you need a stable political system to grow your system and the economy and produce products the world will consume and will know "made in Pakistan" means something.

I know many won't like my statement, but I am speaking of the reality sadly.



Reading your statement, I think you know very well what the "worst" has always been in Pakistani military's minds. If you don't remember the history, go back to Gen. Kiyani's statement he made after that check post incident. But something tells me you know exactly what the "worst case" means.

Both US and Pak didn't have many options back then when USSR was in Afghanistan. US was unwilling for a direct military confrontation with USSR due to a possible MAD scenario and instead fighting with proxies was preferred(such proxy wars also happened in Korea and Vietnam and the two countries never directly confronted each other). Pakistan couldn't directly engage USSR either for various reasons.
- USSR was a super power and Pakistan couldn't match up
- Pak was bogged down with resources spent guarding the eastern border with India
- If Pak used its military to counter USSR in Afghanistan, India could've opened a front on the east and Pak would be screwed in a two front war.

Due to the reasons above and more it was better suited to raise a militia where Pak and US don't seem directly involved and it looks like an Afghan struggle. One of the easiest ways was to rile up and arm the tribal ppl of Afghanistan and the border regions of Pak(that have those same tribal ppl like in FATA) to fight the USSR. The easiest way to convince them to go to war with a powerful country like USSR was using religion. Yes it had super bad repercussions but there weren't many other options back then.

In fact that is one of the biggest reasons of the divergence between US and Pak. Once the deed was done Pak was left to deal with these proxies. For US it was plain and simple solution of "Not in my backyard". As for Pak having an open border with Afghanistan(with relative ease of moving back and forth) it was a real problem. Hence why Pak continued to keep control over them and was hesitant to join US in WoT. The terrorist attacks in Pak were almost non existent prior to Pak joining the US in WoT. The moment Pak joined US against these groups of militants, they turned against Pak and the country started going up in flames. Moreover the push from US troops in Afghanistan ousting the Talibans caused them to just crossover into Pak, exacerbating the problem further. It took a decade for Pak to stabilize but it's slowly getting there.

Anyways the point is that back then in light of USSR sitting in Afghanistan, both US and Pak didn't have many options besides creating such proxies...and now these repercussions must be dealt with. Though all involved parties seem to have different approaches(US/Pak/Afghanistan).