What's new

Pakistan to show missile muscle

I am not talking about what type of payload it takes. I am simply saying, if a 50-60km range multi barrel rocket launcher is to be designed, it will derive from the same technology which Nasr uses. It would rather be inferior in technology.

In such case if the guidance is having 10-15 meter CEP then it will miss all it's target.

I hope now it's easier to understand what I am trying to point out.


If your eyes are not deceiving you. The Missile has a CEP of 5 meters at most. The missile hit was 6-12 feet away from flag atmost.

I have till now literally not understood why did they even build it.
They knew that if they launch this missile India will retaliate with full force. Then what would be the benefit of using it? Whether they stop an advancing army or not, it won't make any difference after that.

Now the problem is they can't use it as MBRL because one may take it as a nuclear threat and may retaliate.

Coming to CEP of MBRL is very close to zero in case of Nasr it is clearly visible 8-9m. It may fall on some house nearby tank.

Remind me Again, All the Cold Start strategy executing Indian Army Corps are situated where? 1st Corps and 3 Corps as i Recall? If you dont know why Nasr was made and for which Indian army corps, then stop commenting on this thread do some research, stop feigning ignorance and derailing threads. Coz your ignorance is degrading the quality of the thread.
 
I am not talking about what type of payload it takes. I am simply saying, if a 50-60km range multi barrel rocket launcher is to be designed, it will derive from the same technology which Nasr uses. It would rather be inferior in technology.

In such case if the guidance is having 10-15 meter CEP then it will miss all it's target.

I hope now it's easier to understand what I am trying to point out.
First it was only few feet away from the flag and In Ballistic Missiles tests they don't look for 100 % accuracy there never is. Secondly NASR is supposed to deliver a nuclear warhead you think few feet would even matter.
 
I think the flag was the target and point zero by this they were measuring the CEP.

So the CEP is close to 10 meters for Nasr 60km range missile.

This is bad.
they were not targeting the flags u stupid stupid hick, the flags were used to highlight the target area, i cant believe someone can sink to this level of idiocity just to feed his ignorance.

are we talking about the Us that got pumped by vietcong real doggy style?, no way the Us can ever occupy Pakistan conventionally and in regards to nuclear, sure we would loose but we will take israel with us, that is our deterence, the Us will never attempt an attack on Pakistan, i repeat never, if they could've they would've by now, the most they can do is fuel terrorist groups like ttp to try to internally break and disintegrate Pakistan which by the way they failed at miserably. Pakistan also has very powerful allies on its side, any attack the Us on Pakistan will swiftly bring China into play, so no the Us cant attack Pakistan, i know we cant attack the Us mainland directly as the official figures stand but we will succesfuly defend ourselves in every sceanrio and will take out several key Us bases in the area and beyond and none of this is big talk.
 
Hey The Deterrent,

As you might know if you recognize me, I'm more knowledgeable about naval systems then I am Army weapons, but I've wondered something about NASR - is its tactical nuclear warhead still the best choice for anti-armor roles? 5 kilotons isn't a large warhead, being 1/3 the size of the Upshot Grabble test:


With modern MBTs being designed with overpressure systems and NBC protection, the residual radiological effects aren't a major impediment to an armored thrust anymore, they've been designed with radiological and nuclear device protection in mind, especially Russian and Western designs where the threat of tactical nukes was present on the hypothetical Eastern Europe arena, thought the initial blast and radiological burst will cause damage and score kills depending on how tightly packed the armor is.

I previously did a post on a 23 kiloton blast and its effects not on armor, but NBC protection-void warships here - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-2-cruise-missile.466682/page-19#post-9012453

Given the cost of production, maintenance and security for nuclear weapons, and the sophistication and lethality of modern anti-armor artillery rockets like the Sense and Destroy Armor round (basically a rocket launched CBU-105) for the M270 MLRS, are tactical nukes still the most effective means of countering armor?

arkiv_fo_p_i_65_document.t459b8cbc.m800.xab183c81.JPG


sadarm3-190.jpg



China has its own SADARM projectile as well.

chinese_sensor_fuzed_smart_submunition_1.jpg


R54Wb.jpg


chinese_sensor_fuzed_smart_submunition_4.jpg


dlsJg.jpg


PKlEq.jpg


While I don't doubt the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons I am more skeptical of their value verse alternative counter-armor, counter-mass assault weapons like a SADARM. I suppose tacking into account the value of a potential for a nuclear counter value strike is also an important part of the analysis though.

This question has been asked a lot of times, and I have repeatedly tried to clear the confusion here and there. So here is a sort of detailed answer.
TL;DR = You are right, Nasr is ineffective against armored columns. The rationale behind developing Nasr is not that, but its about nuking enemy strongholds on Pakistani territory.

Tactical Nukes - the basic idea:
The idea that a tactical nuke would be used only against armor formations stems from the historical deployment of tactical nukes, e.g. by NATO against the USSR. One particularly famous example is the proposed usage of tactical nukes against a Soviet Blitzkrieg at the Fulda Gap in Germany. Fulda Gap is a natural bottleneck for such an armored column, so during the Cold-War, usage of tactical nukes against insufficiently protected tanks (of the cold-war era) would be highly effective.

Ineffectiveness of TNWs against modern MBTs:
You are absolutely correct in your analysis, that in the present age of NBC-protected MBTs, the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons against armor formations, in a flat-terrain region like the Indo-Pakistani border, is questionably low. Assuming a formation with vehicles 10-20 meters apart, a 1-5kt tactical nuke would take out only a dozen or two MBTs by the sheer explosion (inaccurate approximation, but you get the idea).

Cold Start - The reason why Pakistan developed Nasr:
Now common sense directs that the Pakistani military is also aware of the above stated ineffectiveness. So exactly what purpose does a tactical nuke serve in the Indo/Pak region? Why does Pakistan considers Nasr as a counter to the Indian Cold-Start doctrine?

To analyse that, you have to look up how India planned to implement cold-start. In response to a possible Pakistan-sponsored terrorist strike or any other similar event, the idea was to use small Integrated Battle Groups (consisting of MBTs, IFVs, APCs, Infantry & Gunships) to swiftly (in less than 48 hours) start crossing the international border at up to 8 locations, anywhere up to 50kms (I'm not sure about this figure) deep inside Pakistan, and HOLD those 'slices' of Pakistani territory.....BEFORE the international community steps in for the cease-fire because of the fear of nuclear exchange. These 'slices' would be later used for post-war negotiations.
In-short, Cold Start would have given India the ability to 'punish' Pakistan, without triggering a nuclear war. In detail:
“The goal of this limited war doctrine is to establish the capacity to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intercede, and at the same time, pursue narrow enough aims to deny Islamabad a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level."

Deterring Cold Start:
Naturally, this was a dangerous prospect for Pakistan. Cold Start essentially had presented India a loop-hole in the Pakistani nuclear doctrine, so that India could damage Pakistani forces AND humiliate Pakistan before the cease-fire without violating the official 'red' line and triggering a nuclear response.

In order to deter this threat, Pakistan had to find one or all of the following solutions:
1. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via conventional means.
2. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via nuclear means.
3. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via conventional means.
4. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via nuclear means.

Let's discuss the solutions:
1. Given the sheer qualitative and quantitative conventional strength of the Indian military, and the relative weakness of Pakistani military (no SADARM-type munitions as of yet) Solution 1 is difficult to implement. It is not impossible, but there is a chance that Pakistan would be unable to do so.
2. We've already established that in the modern age, Solution 2 is largely ineffective.
3. Solution 3 is much more difficult than Solution 1 because it will also take more time, taking us close to the cease-fire.
4. This leaves us with Solution 4. That is, if the Indian IBGs invade and hold Pakistani territory, the solution is to simply nuke the military elements (camps, headquarters etc) holding those areas, hence nullifying the entire point of Cold Start, and putting the ball back in India's court. The holding military elements cannot possibly be NBC protected for lengthened duration, most of the personnel and equipment have to be out in the open to operate a stronghold. Thus, Nasr plugs-in the loop-hole by being a low-cost and effective deterrent to Cold Start.
10 points to Gryffindor! :partay:

Why a 4-missile system? It's more efficient way to cover an area using multiple low-yield warheads.
Why not use, say, a nuclear Ghaznavi instead? It's not that surgical, it has a higher TEL signature and requires slow launch preparation routines. Nasr is more accurate, looks like a simple conventional MBRL launcher (or a truck if covered up), and is more robust (shoot-and-scoot).
Some may question that how could Pakistan nuke its own land? The answer is that firstly, Cold-Start is effective only in largely uninhabited areas. Areas with higher population density would instead slow down the invasions. Secondly, nuclear weapons when detonated as air-bursts leave minimal to no fallout, and also inflict the most damage via shock-waves. So nuking enemy forces inside your own territory (which is largely uninhabited) is not a bad idea at all.

You do realize that any nuclear weapon below 10 Kt is essentially a Neutron bomb as most of it's high energy neutrons will escape because such weapons don't have outer dense uranium casing. The escaping high energy neutrons can be increased by introducing a fusion stage in the device and the weapon will spend more than 60% of it's energy in neutron production. Thats a Neutron bomb whcih is Nasr warhead.
It' snot designed to destroy Armour vehicles but to disable the man and machine by Neutron radiation.
I have no idea from where you derive this theory. And the way you're so adamant about this is simply appalling.

Modern MBTs are NBC protected. There is NO WAY a modern tank crew gets killed ON THE SPOT because of a strong radiation source on the outside.

I am not talking about what type of payload it takes. I am simply saying, if a 50-60km range multi barrel rocket launcher is to be designed, it will derive from the same technology which Nasr uses. It would rather be inferior in technology.

In such case if the guidance is having 10-15 meter CEP then it will miss all it's target.

I hope now it's easier to understand what I am trying to point out.

Fun-fact: The missile performed evasive maneuvers, and STILL was reasonably accurate.
 
Last edited:
This question has been asked a lot of times, and I have repeatedly tried to clear the confusion here and there. So here is a sort of detailed answer.
TL;DR = You are right, Nasr is ineffective against armored columns. The rationale behind developing Nasr is not that, but its about nuking enemy strongholds on Pakistani territory.

Tactical Nukes - the basic idea:
The idea that a tactical nuke would be used only against armor formations stems from the historical deployment of tactical nukes, e.g. by NATO against the USSR. One particularly famous example is the proposed usage of tactical nukes against a Soviet Blitzkrieg at the Fulda Gap in Germany. Fulda Gap is a natural bottleneck for such an armored column, so during the Cold-War, usage of tactical nukes against insufficiently protected tanks (of the cold-war era) would be highly effective.

Ineffectiveness of TNWs against modern MBTs:
You are absolutely correct in your analysis, that in the present age of NBC-protected MBTs, the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons against armor formations, in a flat-terrain region like the Indo-Pakistani border, is questionably low. Assuming a formation with vehicles 10-20 meters apart, a 1-5kt tactical nuke would take out only a dozen or two MBTs by the sheer explosion (inaccurate approximation, but you get the idea).

Cold Start - The reason why Pakistan developed Nasr:
Now common sense directs that the Pakistani military is also aware of the above fact. So exactly what purpose does a tactical nuke serve in the Indo/Pak region? Why does Pakistan considers Nasr as a counter to the Indian Cold-Start doctrine?

To analyse that, you have to look up how India planned to implement cold-start. In response to a possible Pakistan-sponsored terrorist strike or any other similar event, the idea was to use small Integrated Battle Groups (consisting of MBTs, IFVs, APCs, Infantry & Gunships) to swiftly (in less than 48 hours) start crossing the international border at up to 8 locations, anywhere up to 50kms (I'm not sure about this figure) deep inside Pakistan, and HOLD those 'slices' of Pakistani territory.....BEFORE the international community steps in for the cease-fire because of the fear of nuclear exchange. These 'slices' would be later used for post-war negotiations.
In-short, Cold Start would have given India the ability to 'punish' Pakistan, without triggering a nuclear war. In detail:


Deterring Cold Start:
Naturally, this was a dangerous prospect for Pakistan. Cold Start essentially had presented India a loop-hole in the Pakistani nuclear doctrine, so that India could damage Pakistani forces AND humiliate Pakistan before the cease-fire without violating the official 'red' line and triggering a nuclear response.

In order to deter this threat, Pakistan had to find one or all of the following solutions:
1. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via conventional means.
2. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via nuclear means.
3. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via conventional means.
4. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via nuclear means.

Let's discuss the solutions:
1. Given the sheer qualitative and quantitative conventional strength of the Indian military, and the relative weakness of Pakistani military (no SADARM-type munitions as of yet) Solution 1 is difficult to implement. It is not impossible, but there is a chance that Pakistan would be unable to do so.
2. We've already established that in the modern age, Solution 2 is largely ineffective.
3. Solution 3 is much more difficult than Solution 1 because it will also take more time, taking us close to the cease-fire.
4. This leaves us with Solution 4. That is, if the Indian IBGs invade and hold Pakistani territory, the solution is to simply nuke the military elements (camps, headquarters etc) holding those areas, hence nullifying the entire point of Cold Start. The holding military elements cannot possibly be NBC protected for lengthened duration, most of the personnel and equipment have to be out in the open to operate a stronghold. Thus, Nasr plugs-in the loop-hole by being a low-cost and effective deterrent to Cold Start.
10 points to Gryffindor! :partay:

Why a 4-missile system? It's more efficient way to cover an area using multiple low-yield warheads.
Why not use, say, a nuclear Ghaznavi instead? It's not that surgical, it has a higher TEL signature and requires slow launch preparation routines. Nasr is more accurate, looks like a simple conventional MBRL launcher (or a truck if covered up), and is more robust (shoot-and-scoot).
Some may question that how could Pakistan nuke its own land? The answer is that firstly, Cold-Start is effective only in largely uninhabited areas. Areas with higher population density would instead slow down the invasions. Secondly, nuclear weapons when detonated as air-bursts leave minimal to no fallout, and also inflict the most damage via shock-waves. So nuking enemy forces inside your own territory (which is largely uninhabited) is not a bad idea at all.


I have no idea from where you derive this theory. And the way you're so adamant about this is simply appalling.

Modern MBTs are NBC protected. There is NO WAY a modern tank crew gets killed ON THE SPOT because of a strong radiation source on the outside.



Fun-fact: The missile performed evasive maneuvers, and STILL was reasonably accurate.
The Keyword here is "Modern Tanks". How many Indian tanks are "Modern Tanks"?
Also an armored brigade does not comprise of just tanks and those "Other vehicles" don't have Boron Carbide Armour.
The weapon also serves a psychological purpose. In a war India will know that Pakistan has Nasr Neutron weapons which can Kill the crew inside a tank by Radiation if not protected by Boron Carbide Armour. That will limit the number and types of armored vehicles India will be willing to send our way.
So even if Pakistan doesn't use Nasr in a war, still it will have a major effect.
 
The Keyword here is "Modern Tanks". How many Indian tanks are "Modern Tanks"?
Also an armored brigade does not comprise of just tanks and those "Other vehicles" don't have Boron Carbide Armour.
The weapon also serves a psychological purpose. In a war India will know that Pakistan has Nasr Neutron weapons which can Kill the crew inside a tank by Radiation if not protected by Boron Carbide Armour. That will limit the number and types of armored vehicles India will be willing to send our way.
So even if Pakistan doesn't use Nasr in a war, still it will have a major effect.
1. The proposed Indian IBGs are entirely mechanized, and obviously the IBGs will be composed of the top-tier armor (both MBTs & APCs), which has to be NBC-protected.

2. The quantity of destructible armor India has on the western border outnumbers the amount of TNWs Pakistan can deploy, many times over. Pakistan cannot afford to waste a considerable amount of TNWs for 'psychological' blows (1 or 2 'demonstrations' on friendly territory is another matter), they have to be preserved for the purpose I have described.
 
This launcher + truck needs a digital camo makeover

View attachment 409348

High resolution picture of actual Launcher.
My pixel counting exercise says the missile is 0.5 Meters wide at the base and 6 meter in length.

I also verified this by calculating width to length ratio of the missile winch is 1:12 , or Nasr is 12 times long as it is wide.
So 0.5 meters wide to 6 metes long is also 1:12.

By that Stipulation we can safely say that Pakistan's smallest nuclear bomb is less than 50 Cm wide.

Videos made for forces own internal use for study and evaluation purpose are high definition and more detailed. What they release for public is purposely kept at low quality

By seeing the image quality of nasar test I think that army has borrowed camera from syed noor. :cray:

It's total flight time from click of the button to landing at destination is a few seconds, how do you plan to monitor, track, and launch a retaliatory attack within that time before it actually lands? because you would only find out whether its conventional or not after it lands.

I have till now literally not understood why did they even build it.
They knew that if they launch this missile India will retaliate with full force. Then what would be the benefit of using it? Whether they stop an advancing army or not, it won't make any difference after that.

Now the problem is they can't use it as MBRL because one may take it as a nuclear threat and may retaliate.

Coming to CEP of MBRL is very close to zero in case of Nasr it is clearly visible 8-9m. It may fall on some house nearby tank.
 
pakistan should develop surface to air missiles and air to air missiles also
it going to take some time but i think if pac can pull it off and make a amazing aam we can be better equiped
 
NASR is a weapon of deterrence, if I am not mistaken.
 
they were not targeting the flags u stupid stupid hick, the flags were used to highlight the target area, i cant believe someone can sink to this level of idiocity just to feed his ignorance.

are we talking about the Us that got pumped by vietcong real doggy style?, no way the Us can ever occupy Pakistan conventionally and in regards to nuclear, sure we would loose but we will take israel with us, that is our deterence, the Us will never attempt an attack on Pakistan, i repeat never, if they could've they would've by now, the most they can do is fuel terrorist groups like ttp to try to internally break and disintegrate Pakistan which by the way they failed at miserably. Pakistan also has very powerful allies on its side, any attack the Us on Pakistan will swiftly bring China into play, so no the Us cant attack Pakistan, i know we cant attack the Us mainland directly as the official figures stand but we will succesfuly defend ourselves in every sceanrio and will take out several key Us bases in the area and beyond and none of this is big talk.

bakwas band kar apni...

and go through that post again... or ask the other guy @Army research who has replied to me after understanding correctly what I actually wrote.

It's total flight time from click of the button to landing at destination is a few seconds, how do you plan to monitor, track, and launch a retaliatory attack within that time before it actually lands?

This is what India built QR SAM , it has robust tracking capability.

By the way keeping detection ranging tracking away. I have still not understood the reason to build it. It like if you use this missile it will lead to nuclear war, then why to use 60km range missile.

It won't matter if you stop Indian push inside your territory because after you use it India will retaliate with full force.

In order to deter this threat, Pakistan had to find one or all of the following solutions:
1. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via conventional means.
2. Prevent Indian IBGs from advancing into Pakistani territory via nuclear means.
3. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via conventional means.
4. Defeat the Indian strongholds inside Pakistani territory & regain it before cease-fire via nuclear means.

1. What is the use of that prevention when India retaliates and showers Mirvs over Pak.
2. How is it a defeat when after you use this missile and India launches massive nuclear strike on Pak?

What is the use?
If the policy is to stop them via nuclear means then it means starting a nuclear war.

If your eyes are not deceiving you. The Missile has a CEP of 5 meters at most. The missile hit was 6-12 feet away from flag atmost.

It was more than that, the second shot was way deviated from the target please have a look your self.

And my point was if Nasr is used to derive an MBRL system then the guidance which is used in Nasr, which is most probably highly advance , would be used in MBRL and MBRL missing it's target even by 20 feet is considered highly inaccurate.

Remind me Again, All the Cold Start strategy executing Indian Army Corps are situated where? 1st Corps and 3 Corps as i Recall? If you dont know why Nasr was made and for which Indian army corps, then stop commenting on this thread do some research, stop feigning ignorance and derailing threads. Coz your ignorance is degrading the quality of the thread.

By using nuclear means on Indian army corps to deter them means starting a nuclear war. I don't see any prevention in that, I see only credible destruction of Pakistan due to Indian retaliatory nuclear strike.
 
1. What is the use of that prevention when India retaliates and showers Mirvs over Pak.
2. How is it a defeat when after you use this missile and India launches massive nuclear strike on Pak?

What is the use?
If the policy is to stop them via nuclear means then it means starting a nuclear war.

Do you have any idea how Nuclear Deterrence works?

44889800.jpg


Put your pea-brain to some productive use and learn something.
 
bakwas band kar apni...

and go through that post again... or ask the other guy @Army research who has replied to me after understanding correctly what I actually wrote.



This is what India built QR SAM , it has robust tracking capability.

By the way keeping detection ranging tracking away. I have still not understood the reason to build it. It like if you use this missile it will lead to nuclear war, then why to use 60km range missile.

It won't matter if you stop Indian push inside your territory because after you use it India will retaliate with full force.



1. What is the use of that prevention when India retaliates and showers Mirvs over Pak.
2. How is it a defeat when after you use this missile and India launches massive nuclear strike on Pak?

What is the use?
If the policy is to stop them via nuclear means then it means starting a nuclear war.



It was more than that, the second shot was way deviated from the target please have a look your self.

And my point was if Nasr is used to derive an MBRL system then the guidance which is used in Nasr, which is most probably highly advance , would be used in MBRL and MBRL missing it's target even by 20 feet is considered highly inaccurate.



By using nuclear means on Indian army corps to deter them means starting a nuclear war. I don't see any prevention in that, I see only credible destruction of Pakistan due to Indian retaliatory nuclear strike.



Really ?????????...........IF india COULD they WOULD have done so by now. Just more indian fantasies. If any of what you say is true then what happened after mumbai 2008 and uri 2016?..........:azn:

That too considering the fact that india is more than 7x bigger than us and has abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege...........:azn:
 
Really ?????????...........IF india COULD they WOULD have done so by now. Just more indian fantasies. If any of what you say is true then what happened after mumbai 2008 and uri 2016?..........:azn:

That too considering the fact that india is more than 7x bigger than us and has abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege...........:azn:

kya bak raha hai?
baat karni nahi ati toh quote mat kar

Do you have any idea how Nuclear Deterrence works?

44889800.jpg


Put your pea-brain to some productive use and learn something.

If you hit anything Indian anywhere be it by nasr or shaheen or abdali whatever. India will retaliate and it won't matter if you even successful stopping the Indian army push into your territory.

Be it cold start or any invasion of Pakistan if you launch Nasr India will launch Agni. So it's your call you want to counter conventionally or nuclear.
 
are we talking about the Us that got pumped by vietcong real doggy style?, no way the Us can ever occupy Pakistan conventionally and in regards to nuclear, sure we would loose but we will take israel with us, that is our deterence, the Us will never attempt an attack on Pakistan, i repeat never, if they could've they would've by now, the most they can do is fuel terrorist groups like ttp to try to internally break and disintegrate Pakistan which by the way they failed at miserably. Pakistan also has very powerful allies on its side, any attack the Us on Pakistan will swiftly bring China into play, so no the Us cant attack Pakistan, i know we cant attack the Us mainland directly as the official figures stand but we will succesfuly defend ourselves in every sceanrio and will take out several key Us bases in the area and beyond and none of this is big talk.
Look bro,

US can thoroughly defeat Pakistan in a war - let us not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise. Even if we develop some ICBMs, we still don't stand a chance. I can expand into this "theoretical scenario" in great detail but I don't see the point. Those who are so eager for US-Pak confrontation do not realize that this would be real tragedy for the region. US will suffer some losses (at most) but Pakistan will be gone.

Cold War era Vietnam War doesn't reflect upon current ground realities - much has changed since.

However, some "food for thought" for the curious:-

- North Korea
- Vietnam
- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- Libya

Do you see a pattern?

US was much less economically invested in each (and) none was a democracy.

Now, what was the situation in 2001?

US was much less economically invested in Pakistan and our country was not a democracy either - both factors. Does it surprise you that US threatened Pakistan under these circumstances?

---

If Pakistan becomes a foreign investment hub - all external threats will be OFF for good barring India (Kashmir factor).

We have ticked the democracy part insofar. We need to transform Pakistan into a foreign investment hub next.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom