Taimur: Pakistan's ICBM?

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Space program and ICBM is in Pakistan's National Interest

And its not true that our enemy is with in our range last time I checked India and Pakistan did not had a major war for quite some time

Its our national interest to engage any nation that dares to fly "weaponized" planes and missiles and target civilians with out a proper "authority" to conduct such actions.

It violates National interest and makes the culprit our enemy automatically as a nation

While our Leaders may say oh we will have dinner with them and they will give us a F16 for gift , in end what matters is that we build a ICBM and proper air defense to stop such countries from violating airspace

We should have a policy in Place to have 7,000 KM missiles and 11,000 km range missiles
and also have Space program

 

[I M Sikander]

Space program and ICBM is in Pakistan's National Interest

Its our national interest to engage any nation that dares to fly "weaponized" planes and missiles and target civilians with out a proper "authority" to conduct such actions.

It violates National interest and makes the culprit our enemy automatically as a nation

While our Leaders may say oh we will have dinner with them and they will give us a F16 for gift , in end what matters is that we build a ICBM and proper air defense to stop such countries from violating airspace.

Dude, all your argument doesn't make sense, going for ICBM or not is one question where as space violation by drone attacks is a totally different issue.

It seems to me as if, the kids on these forums are getting sick of having wars with india all the time. And now they are dying to see PAK-US conflict.

Grow up guyz, Going for ICBM or not is a pure strategic matter don't try to portay this as USA specific ICBM. Drone attacks and violations are lame excuses to go for ICBM. Our defense strategy is india centric, lets not add US dimension to it.

We should have a policy in Place to have 7,000 KM missiles and 11,000 km range missiles
and also have Space program

Instead of waisting resources on any dream project just for the sake of "Standing straight collars" is useless. We should not spread beyond our pants.

 

[I M Sikander]

Cuz we are getting threats from across the oceans nowadayz and we need to counter that through our own ICBMs....

No one is threating us from "Saath Samadar Paar". The US is sitting very close to us with their bases in afghanistan, Qatar.

 

[jamal18]

No one is threating us from "Saath Samadar Paar". The US is sitting very close to us with their bases in afghanistan, Qatar.

The US is threatening Pakistan, and a US/ Pakistan conflict is inevitable.

The west is very keen to bomb others simply because it is never in danger itself. There is no threat to its behaviour. This is why it is keen to bomb the Arabs.

The moment bombs are landing, for the first time, at their home, you will find they become more reluctant to bomb others.

 

[Desert Fox]

Everyday the same BS and the same threads with the same fanboyish comments, i'm sick and tired of this nonsense.

 

[regular]

Everyday the same BS and the same threads with the same fanboyish comments, i'm sick and tired of this nonsense.

What kinda comments U can expect here???.....US is the biggest threat to every nation on the face of this world whatsoever.......

 

[anonymus]

There was a quote from the head of suparco, ( he should know a thing or two) that Pakistan was about three years away from a SLV. I believe this quote is more than ten years old.

One of the of the reasons why Pakistan was not placed under more severe restrictions by the west is the understanding that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is purely for India, it is not aimed at anybody else. A SLV will blow that understanding to oblivion. The moment Pakistan develops a SLV, it automatically brings London, Paris, New York and Jeruselam into the firing line. The diplomatic backlash against Pakistan will be catastrophic.

It doesn't take the brains of an Einstein to figure out why Pakistan has not done this.

Man,Mechanics of ICBM is completely different from SLV.The similarity between the two is the same that is between a car and bike.They use same kind of engines but apart from that there is a lot of difference between the two.For starters a SLV flies under it's own power for the whole journey while a ICBM is powered only in a boost phase.then a SLV has to deliver it's payload in orbit while a payload of an ICBM has to reenter the atmosphere thus facing the perils of being destroyed by heat generated by friction.To add to this an SLV is massive in size compared to any missile and takes days to be refueled and hauled to launch site and it's launching need ideal situations something which no one could afford during a war.An ability to built SLV provides an engineering base which could be used to make ICBM but you cannot convert an SLV into an ICBM.
Another difference which i did not pointed in the main body of my reply is because it concerns an specific type of SLV which has a capacity to launch satellites in geo-stationary orbit.An ICBM needs for power in its boost phase is comparable to an GSLV.Even if you are able to make an SLV,You would still need an ability to make an cryogenic engine to make an ICBM if you people make a missile with same propellents.
India had an SLV program since 1970's with first SLV (SLV3) launched in 1980 but has been able to make decent missiles only recently.
And one more point,You have not designed any missile.You bought their designs and parts from China and north korea.Your Ex army chief and president Gen musharraf accepted it.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/30781.pdf
Asia Times
MissileThreat :: Pakistan
PAKISTAN & AXIS OF EVIL: Ghauri Missile
The Korean Spy's Murder Covered Up by Pakistan's Nuclear Bosses
So possibly your country simply has no engineering base for rocket science(missile or SLV).Nobody will go mad if you lauch a rock in space.

 

[anonymus]

The US is threatening Pakistan, and a US/ Pakistan conflict is inevitable.

The west is very keen to bomb others simply because it is never in danger itself. There is no threat to its behaviour. This is why it is keen to bomb the Arabs.

The moment bombs are landing, for the first time, at their home, you will find they become more reluctant to bomb others.

If pakistan needs to take on west it need to have more than ICBM's.Most of it's assets would be destroyed on ground and even if it is able to launch some missiles,they would be interdicted by NMD.

You have a location flag of UK.I believe that you are not taking about UK when you mention about home.

 

[asad71]

we don't need ICBM
our targets are already in our range
but may be we are working

I had asked that question because there were reports the Americans had obtained an undertaking from Mush that Pakistan would not make missiles capable of reaching Israel. In today's context, the current Western armada assembled in the Persian Gulf is as much a threat to Iran as Pakistan.

 

[T-Rex]

I had asked that question because there were reports the Americans had obtained an undertaking from Mush that Pakistan would not make missiles capable of reaching Israel. In today's context, the current Western armada assembled in the Persian Gulf is as much a threat to Iran as Pakistan.

Mir Jaffars are everywhere, working unederneath to prevent appropriate deterrent from being developed.

 

[jamal18]

Man,Mechanics of ICBM is completely different from SLV.The similarity between the two is the same that is between a car and bike.They use same kind of engines but apart from that there is a lot of difference between the two.For starters a SLV flies under it's own power for the whole journey while a ICBM is powered only in a boost phase.then a SLV has to deliver it's payload in orbit while a payload of an ICBM has to reenter the atmosphere thus facing the perils of being destroyed by heat generated by friction.To add to this an SLV is massive in size compared to any missile and takes days to be refueled and hauled to launch site and it's launching need ideal situations something which no one could afford during a war.An ability to built SLV provides an engineering base which could be used to make ICBM but you cannot convert an SLV into an ICBM.
Another difference which i did not pointed in the main body of my reply is because it concerns an specific type of SLV which has a capacity to launch satellites in geo-stationary orbit.An ICBM needs for power in its boost phase is comparable to an GSLV.Even if you are able to make an SLV,You would still need an ability to make an cryogenic engine to make an ICBM if you people make a missile with same propellents.
India had an SLV program since 1970's with first SLV (SLV3) launched in 1980 but has been able to make decent missiles only recently.
And one more point,You have not designed any missile.You bought their designs and parts from China and north korea.Your Ex army chief and president Gen musharraf accepted it.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/30781.pdf
Asia Times
MissileThreat :: Pakistan
PAKISTAN & AXIS OF EVIL: Ghauri Missile
The Korean Spy's Murder Covered Up by Pakistan's Nuclear Bosses
So possibly your country simply has no engineering base for rocket science(missile or SLV).Nobody will go mad if you lauch a rock in space.

Thank you for your enlightening post. I was not aware of many of the things you mention.

However, I believe the head of suparco was aware of these points before he made his statement.

Nobody will go made if Pakistan launches a rock into space?

There won't be a set of dry underwear in the west if they did.

 

[jamal18]

If pakistan needs to take on west it need to have more than ICBM's.Most of it's assets would be destroyed on ground and even if it is able to launch some missiles,they would be interdicted by NMD.

You have a location flag of UK.I believe that you are not taking about UK when you mention about home.

Pakistan isn't taking any one 'on', it would be defending itself.

How and what will be destroyed on the ground? By conventional forces? Nato has only one airbase in the area, Bagram; is it that difficult to disable one airfield when that is the only target available?

The threat would be from aircraft carriers out at sea, with their inherent vulnerability.

And a nuclear exchange? In the Iraq war, Nato didn't destroy a single scud launched by Iraq on
Israel.

If Pakistan had an ICBM, do you think western politicians really want to find out if it works?

Hiroshima would never have happened if Japan had the ability to bomb the US.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...For starters a SLV flies under it's own power for the whole journey while a ICBM is powered only in a boost phase....

The "whole journey" of the satellite carrier is just to the orbit, which, wrt horizontal distance, is a small fraction of the total horizontal distance (over Earth's curve of course) that a ballistic missile's RV has to cover.

jamal18:
All SLVs are not the same. Having certain kinds of one would cause consternation among other countries currently out of range. For example, an Arian 5 or a Soyuz cannot be perceived by anyone to be used in any wartime situation as BMs, although theoretically they may be able to deliver their payload at a designated destination on the planet.

 

[T-Rex]

A stitch in time saves nine; Pakistan wasted valuable time in developing only short range and intermediate range missiles. It should not have put on hold the development of ICBMs.

 

[Tihamah]

Mashaa`allah

Very nice, it is important to improve the nuclear deterrence capabilities of pakistan muslims needs this.