Pakistani ICBM

[AUz]

SLV conversion was even possible a dozen yrs ago.

Can you expand on it a bit (within allowed parameters, ofc)

What do you mean by SLV conversion? Do you mean Pakistan ballistic missiles’ conversion to SLVs? Or do you mean SLV-to-ICBM conversion?

My question was regarding Pakistan’s capability to develop an ICBM (8000km range etc)

 

[Imran Khan]

Can you expand on it a bit (within allowed parameters, ofc)

What do you mean by SLV conversion? Do you mean Pakistan ballistic missiles’ conversion to SLVs? Or do you mean SLV-to-ICBM conversion?

My question was regarding Pakistan’s capability to develop an ICBM (8000km range etc)

kis ko marna hai 8000km door hazoor

 

[AUz]

kis ko marna hai 8000km door hazoor

Ksi ko nai. We are talking about capability, not insisting for production.

 

[messiach]

OK i will write it down later. SLV is more of a guided than a balliastic vehicle.

Can you expand on it a bit (within allowed parameters, ofc)

What do you mean by SLV conversion? Do you mean Pakistan ballistic missiles’ conversion to SLVs? Or do you mean SLV-to-ICBM conversion?

My question was regarding Pakistan’s capability to develop an ICBM (8000km range etc)

 

[AUz]

OK i will write it down later. SLV is more of a guided than a balliastic vehicle.

Looking forward to your educated insights into the topic of Pakistani capability vis-a-vis 8000km+ ICBM and SLVs!

 

[YeBeWarned]

OK i will write it down later. SLV is more of a guided than a balliastic vehicle.

Please do tag me when you write about it .. I will be eagerly waiting for your posts

 

[guest9999]

Pakistani scientists and engineers have achieved the ability to build and test an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).

Capability was achieved, but the powers that be, have decided that for the time being that potential will remain just potential.

Full spectrum deterrence has been achieved against the neighbour to the east, and having a ICBM would invite a unnecessary spotlight on the homeland.

The only way I see that decision being changed is, well let's just leave it at that.

I strongly believe that the top brass has made a critical mistake by avoiding the most crucial stage in becoming a proper nuclear weapons state:

Developing & inducting ICBM's

The argument that the ICBM will invite unnecessary attention and economic sanctions has always been flawed. Pakistan already suffers from lack of investment from western countries and exports are minuscule. It is already economically weak. In case you remember, the 2008 financial crisis hardly affected the Pakistani economy.

As for attention, doesn't Pakistan already get too much of that? When the Iran Nuclear deal was struck, western powers turned their attention towards Pakistan the next day. Furthermore, having an ICBM would prevent humiliating raids near its military academies. Which by the way, has led Pakistan to its current state today, where Iranian troops can come into Balochistan and kill people and the Indians believe they could launch "surgical strikes". All of this can be avoided if Pakistan only behaves like a full-fledged nuclear power, instead of relying on "minimum deterrence" fixated on India.

The naivety of top brass in believing that if they only focus on India and verbally state this, the west will ignore them, is ridiculous. The west will never live peacefully with a nuclear Muslim country. North Koreans were much smarter. They focused only on getting to the ICBM level. Just take a look at what wonders that did for them? The US literally addressed it like an equal, while Pakistan is treated like garbage. If Pakistan wants to be treated with respect, it will need a big stick, ICBM.

 

[Hassan Guy]

 

[Cookie Monster]

kis ko marna hai 8000km door hazoor

Even if the enemy is right next door, in order to have true second strike capability...a country still requires long range missiles-SLBM(preferably MIRV) and nuclear submarines.

So in the event that if country A preemptively strikes country B with its nukes...and country B isn't able to launch its land bases nukes in time, which then all end up getting destroyed by the preemptive nuclear strike...country B will still be able to destroy country A in response with its nuclear submarines lurking away in other parts of the world.

 

[Zarvan]

Israel's involvement in the attack on Pakistan should be taken as eye opener. Time to increase number of nuclear war heads as well as reveal our own ICBM

 

[guest9999]

Pardon me for saying this, but I believe Pakistan's nuclear posture and doctrine is questionable. Why is Pakistan so fixated on developing weapons that question its intent to use nuclear weapons, such as the NASR missile? In fact, the Indians probably feel that Pakistan's nuclear weapons threat is a bluff, that's why they are doing these strikes.

When Pakistan tested NASR, it revealed the lack of intent to use nukes on cities like Mumbai, and keep them contained on its own territory to stop indian thrusts. This puts a big question on mark on Pakistani intent to use nuclear weapons.

When the world is moving forward towards ICBMs, hypersonic cruise missiles, HGV (hypersonic glide vehicles), and even nuclear UUV with 100 megaton warheads, why is Pakistan moving backwards towards tactical nukes?

 

[Riz]

Israel's involvement in the attack on Pakistan should be taken as eye opener. Time to increase number of nuclear war heads as well as reveal our own ICBM

Consider this there provocation, they want us to do something silly that annoyed whole world against Pakistan ... Best reply would be todo same as like Israelis are doing... Supply some lethal arms to Israelis neighbouring countries....koi ghulail sa mar raha ha to usko ghulail sa he maro Tank sa marna bewakoofi hoti ha

 

[guest9999]

Even if the enemy is right next door, in order to have true second strike capability...a country still requires long range missiles-SLBM(preferably MIRV) and nuclear submarines.

Thanks for adding on.

Forgot to mention this, but North Korea also has tested SLBMs along with ICBMs. When a country as dirt poor and as sanctioned as North Korea can test these weapons, I see no reason why Pakistan cannot do the same?

As I mentioned, if Pakistan wants to be treated with respect, it needs a big stick. It needs ICBMs and SLBMs, not some insignificant tactical nuke.

We talk about economic stability? Well how is Pakistan supposed to achieve this when it is constantly under threat from countries that do not respect its power?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Thanks for adding on.

Forgot to mention this, but North Korea also has tested SLBMs along with ICBMs. When a country as dirt poor and as sanctioned as North Korea can test these weapons, I see no reason why Pakistan cannot do the same?

As I mentioned, if Pakistan wants to be treated with respect, it needs a big stick. It needs ICBMs and SLBMs, not some insignificant tactical nuke.

We talk about economic stability? Well how is Pakistan supposed to achieve this when it is constantly under threat from countries that do not respect its power?

TBH North Korea's submarines and SLBMs aren't much to speak of. Much remains to be seen...their operational status(is it limited to tests or has been adopted on a mass scale), their CEP, or if it's just a simple ballistic trajectory(vs having the capability for evasive maneuvers). These things play a critical role in determining if those SLBMs will have their intended effect on the battlefield.

Anyways I'm not much interested in discussing North Korea's SLBM...in case of Pak...I don't think there's a need to reveal ICBMs yet. The economy needs to pick up pace...or else the world will try to band together in sanctioning Pak like they did with Iran.

 

[guest9999]

Anyways I'm not much interested in discussing North Korea's SLBM...in case of Pak...I don't think there's a need to reveal ICBMs yet. The economy needs to pick up pace...or else the world will try to band together in sanctioning Pak like they did with Iran.

Let's say you kick the can further down the road. Once the economy stabilizes, what next? How will you test ICBMs and SLBMs under the same threat of sanctions? If you test right now, you may suffer economic consequences. If you test later, you may suffer economic consequences? Either way, you are blocked. If economy stabilizes and five years, you decide you want ICBM/SLBM, are you going to not test and discard potential to become full fledged nuclear power because it may ruin your economy?

This is the same mistake Pakistan made in stopping nuclear weapons testing after 1998. It should have kept testing and improving its weapons yield and designs, instead of just matching India. Either way, it was sanctioned. Either way, it got relief from those sanctions in the near future.

Better to test and gain the ability now, than worry about it later. Economic growth will come regardless. Pakistan tested Shaheen III and Ababeel. We did not see any sanctions in response to that. My point is if you want to be become a full-fledged nuclear power, go all the way, don't just stop half-way through.

As for economic sanctions, let's remember that North Korea and even Russia are still going through with their nuclear and missile programs. China made it's ICBMs and tested its nuclear weapon designs before it embarked on its economic growth plan. Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (ICBM/SLBM) are more important than economic growth, as evident in the history of these countries I just mentioned.