Pakistan's growing nuclear programme

[TaimiKhan]

what are those factors?
Throw some light.

Production of fissile material, weapon grade weapon material production facilities being made, normal power generation nuke plants are also one of the factor which can tell that the nuke program of a country is growing, as even though they are for power generation, they can still be used for military purposes if required. Nuke delivery platforms in the shape of missiles S2SM / A2SM can also be added, as in the end they are also part of the nuke program, as more of these missiles are made, the more of these missiles need warheads.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Nothing wrong with Pakistan expanding it's nuclear programme. Although I would think that their money would be better spent in other sectors but it's not for me to decide. I think what worries the international community is not the actual expansion of the programme itself but the intent behind it, bearing in mind Pakistan still maintains a first use policy.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Nothing wrong with Pakistan expanding it's nuclear programme. Although I would think that their money would be better spent in other sectors but it's not for me to decide. I think what worries the international community is not the actual expansion of the programme itself but the intent behind it, bearing in mind Pakistan still maintains a first use policy.

Except for China and India, no nuke power has complete or full no-first strike pledge or policy, all of the rest nuke powers have first strike policy, including USA, Russia, NATO and others. So, before worrying about us, those countries should worry about their own countries with first strike policy, as ours is no concern for rest of the world. If US can have it, why not Pakistan since its faced against a much bigger conventional foe.

And as for money, even if we use the already allocated money for public in an efficient & efficient way, we can achieve a lot, since that money is not utilized properly, even if at this stage we channel the funds being used for nuclear program to public expenditure, majority of these funds would go in someone else pocket and will yield no positive result in combating poverty.

 

[Hafizzz]

What point are you trying to make? Anything new or worthwhile? These claims are as old as the missiles or the nuclear bombs themselves.

India's nuclear and missile program are growing at a rate that no country in the world can match. Wonder why Indian users here are not posting News article about them ?

 

[Dalai Lama]

Except for China and India, no nuke power has complete or full no-first strike pledge or policy, all of the rest nuke powers have first strike policy, including USA, Russia, NATO and others. So, before worrying about us, those countries should worry about their own countries with first strike policy, as ours is no concern for rest of the world. If US can have it, why not Pakistan since its faced against a much bigger conventional foe.

1 Countries pledging no-first-use
China
India

2 Countries pledging only to use nuclear weapons defensively
United Kingdom
United States
Israel

3 Countries that have indicated a no-first-use intention
Pakistan


Forgive me for using wikipedia. You are right Russia is not on this list but can you provide a source proving that they have a first strike policy? Also I would argue that Pakistan adopting a no-first use policy would ease tensions between India and Pakistan. Since Pakistan perceives no other nation as a threat... (please don't mention Israel, it is not even a known nuclear state etc. etc.). An example of this would be China and India, both are nuclear states and both have a no first strike policy effectively minimizing the threat of nuclear warfare.


I would also argue that pledging only to use nuclear weapons defensively is not a first-strike policy. It means that nations pledging by this cannot retreat to nuclear strikes to change the tide of a battle instigated by them with no threat to their very own existence or sovereignty.

 

[TaimiKhan]

1 Countries pledging no-first-use
China
India

2 Countries pledging only to use nuclear weapons defensively
United Kingdom
United States
Israel

3 Countries that have indicated a no-first-use intention
Pakistan


Forgive me for using wikipedia. You are right Russia is not on this list but can you provide a source proving that they have a first strike policy? Also I would argue that Pakistan adopting a no-first use policy would ease tensions between India and Pakistan. Since Pakistan perceives no other nation as a threat... (please don't mention Israel, it is not even a known nuclear state etc. etc.). An example of this would be China and India, both are nuclear states and both have a no first strike policy effectively minimizing the threat of nuclear warfare.


I would also argue that pledging only to use nuclear weapons defensively is not a first-strike policy. It means that nations pledging by this cannot retreat to nuclear strikes to change the tide of a battle instigated by them with no threat to their very own existence or sovereignty.

Russia Drops Pledge of No First Use of Atom Arms - NYTimes.com

No First Use of Nuclear Weapons meeting: paper by Yuri Fedorov, 'Russia's Doctrine on the Use of Nuclear Weapons'

Russia Adopts Nuclear First Strike Military Doctrine


And as far as Pakistan's nuke policy is concerned, there is no written first strike policy or doctrine.

Pakistan has no pure first strike policy, which means preemptive strike policy.

More about Preemptive War or Strike: Preemptive war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israeli war of 1967 was a preemptive strike.

Pakistan's policy is more like the limited first strike policy or what you can call a defensive first strike policy.

Limited first strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pure first strike policy means, launching of nuke weapons before even the war has started, rather you start the war with the launching of nukes, and Pakistan has not that policy. It will launch its nukes when it sees that its armed forces have become weak or that its defensive positions have broken down and the enemy is gonna penetrate deep inside the country, even then it will not launch its nukes on Indian cities, rather the first use would be on the battlefield, to stop enemy advance.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Pure first strike policy means, launching of nuke weapons before even the war has started, rather you start the war with the launching of nukes, and Pakistan has not that policy. It will launch its nukes when it sees that its armed forces have become weak or that its defensive positions have broken down and the enemy is gonna penetrate deep inside the country, even then it will not launch its nukes on Indian cities, rather the first use would be on the battlefield, to stop enemy advance.

Thank you for the sources. So would you agree that a Pakistan would be better off adopting a defensive use of nuclear weapons strategy? I mean, in essence it would serve the same purpose... the purpose of deterring India (which Pakistan acknowledges to be a much bigger conventional force).

PS: Also I would think this would ease a lot on pressure on Pakistan as it's nuclear programme would no longer be under the spotlight.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thank you for the sources. So would you agree that a Pakistan would be better off adopting a defensive use of nuclear weapons strategy? I mean, in essence it would serve the same purpose... the purpose of deterring India (which Pakistan acknowledges to be a much bigger conventional force).

PS: Also I would think this would ease a lot on pressure on Pakistan as it's nuclear programme would no longer be under the spotlight.

Pakistan has defensive use of nuke strategy, its the media which is making it some big issue, where it is not, but a statement by Pakistan in that regard would be good to clarify things.

And even if we pledge no first strike policy, the spotlight won't go away. Till we have nukes or some other more threatening Muslim country does not gets nukes, we are gonna have the spotlight on us only.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Pakistan has defensive use of nuke strategy, its the media which is making it some big issue, where it is not, but a statement by Pakistan in that regard would be good to clarify things.

And even if we pledge no first strike policy, the spotlight won't go away. Till we have nukes or some other more threatening Muslim country does not gets nukes, we are gonna have the spotlight on us only.

Pakistan does not have a defensive strategy, if it does then GoP haven't pledged to abide by it. Also you seem to think this is a form of discrimination against Islamic countries. If you recall Israel is also currently under scrutiny for its possible nuclear programme not to mention the sanctions that India was under for testing nuclear weapons.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

If they are producing weapon grade fissile material even if their warhead count is not increasing, doesn't it means they are growing their nuclear program ?? Their nuke related nuke plants are not shut, they are working and producing, even though they have stabilized their nuke warhead count or reducing it.

Lets assume there is only one nuclear facility that can process 30 kg fissile material per year at maximum capacity. Lets assume a single nuke requires 5 kg of fissile material and shelf life is 10 years. So now, the plant will be able to produce 6 nukes per year and till the 10th year, it will be producing 60 nukes (assuming the plant will be able to operate at its maximum capacity for all these 10 years, without a break). So after 10 years of production run, the plant will have to start replenishment run. Now, at the end of 10th year, the State is left with 3 choices. 1) Increase capacity of its sole nuclear facility, so it can simultaneously replenish old nukes and produce new ones or 2) establish a new processing plant or 3) carry on with its existing plant with existing processing capacity and be satisfied with replenishment of old nukes.

It the State selects any or both of 1) & 2) it is expanding in the most uncomplicated sense.

Nuke warheads is not just the only factor which tells is the nuke program increasing or decreasing, there are other factors too which tell us what's growing and what not.

Like what?

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Production of fissile material, weapon grade weapon material production facilities being made,

These are nuke program alright, but not 'expansion' per se.

...normal power generation nuke plants are also one of the factor which can tell that the nuke program of a country is growing, as even though they are for power generation, they can still be used for military purposes if required.

Civilian nuke plants are not a matter of worry as long as they are under international watch. And once a plant is declared 'civilian' the only other way it can be used as military facility is by reneging on international agreements.

Nuke delivery platforms in the shape of missiles S2SM / A2SM can also be added, as in the end they are also part of the nuke program, as more of these missiles are made, the more of these missiles need warheads.

Nuke delivery platforms are exactly what they are, delivery platforms. Nothing more.

 

[Chogy]

Any pledges with regards to nukes aren't worth the paper they are written on. World events can change dramatically, and if a country feels a desperate need, a "statement" about nuclear use means little.

If a nuclear nation is about to be totally destroyed by a gigantic conventional army, it will lash out with nukes regardless of any paper statement, which is why Israel is relatively immune in the sense that Israel will not be "wiped off the map."

There are other WMD besides nukes. My understanding of US nuclear policy is that nukes can and will be used if an enemy makes large and extensive use of nerve agents, for example.

The "race" in warhead quantity between the US and USSR reached insane levels. If designed to truly be a deterrent, a nation does not need a gigantic arsenal. What it needs instead is an immune arsenal, the best being a nuclear ballistic missile sub fleet. After that, you need hidden and movable land-based missiles. If nuclear assets are exposed to a first strike, the temptation might be there for an enemy to give it a try.

What the correct number is? Who can say, except the leaders of a country. I'd say if a nation has >200 warheads, plus relatively immune delivery systems, then it is secure.

 

[somebozo]

another pakistani "secret" discovered by indians..wow soo impressive..as if the whole world doesnt know about it....infact it was written by a correspondent in karachi should shed some light.

 

[SMC]

How are we suffering by having nuclear weapons like many bharatis have indicated? I see many bharatis have found their own theories in what's causing problems for Pakistan. Perhaps they need to look into correlation vs causation.

 

[Malik Usman]

Always such things are posted by US media or its baby...UK's media and off course another country...(Don't need to mention here). You will never heard from other nations such propaganda.