What's new

The thermonuclear secrets of Challakere

Lol why would you need inspectors for an agricultural research centre. Your hatred has made you blind.

If anyone is blind it is the Zionist Hindus, envy and hate ridden anything Pakistan or Islãm.

I say, the best way to burn anyone, especially a foe, purposefully, is to cause extreme envy in them, which works wonders, without the need for fighting, amazingly causing an inferiority complex and increase in shallowness in their disposition.

I know that Zionist Hindus and those of other false beliefs will find the above hard to digest!
 
If anyone is blind it is the Zionist Hindus, envy and hate ridden anything Pakistan or Islãm.

I say, the best way to burn anyone, especially a foe, purposefully, is to cause extreme envy in them, which works wonders, without the need for fighting, amazingly causing an inferiority complex and increase in shallowness in their disposition.

I know that Zionist Hindus and those of other false beliefs will find the above hard to digest!
Why should any sane free thinking men not hate fascism? :azn:

your hatred has made you blind and paranoid. I wonder with this mindset your nuclear weapons are secure? What if you decalre war basis these assumptions?
Pakistan is the only country to have threatened a UN member state with nuclear destruction based on a fake tweet. They are capable of anything.
 
Why should any sane free thinking men not hate fascism? :azn:


Pakistan is the only country to have threatened a UN member state with nuclear destruction based on a fake tweet. They are capable of anything.

You're a very bitter person, take honey, it'll help you RE-BOOT and rid you of your hate, envy and bitterness, inshaALLAH!:pakistan:
 
and nothing is wrong with any statement regarding Pakistan. It's wrong only for Indians. We have bombs pointing towards india only.
We have nuclear doctrine which we would declare by using them at time of need.

I didn't say India has a problem.

But the NSG sure seems to have one.

What I'm suggesting is that a country having N-weapons that

- is deliberately ambiguous about its policy of use of nuclear weapons
- has had proliferation issues in the not-too-distant past
- has doubts about civilian control of its weapons
- a fast rate of production of weapons [in relative terms]
- has a high proportion of utilisation of nuclear fuel for weapons programmes [compared to civilian use]; and
- and continues to develop and announce tactical weapons

is unlikely to win the confidence of the NSG. The logic of its disarmament demand [we do it only if India does it] and application [we want it because India wants it] is also unhelpful.

One reason why countries support India is due to India's low-key and rather tame N-weapons programme. Indian officials or politicians hardly even bring up the subject (Parriker was a big exception with his irresponsible remarks last year) and that works.
 
Regardless of how ill-informed this thread is about Chellakare, Pak posters are the most unqualified to talk about such subject unless they openly admit and apologize for the thievery of A Q Khan and company (actually by their own government but A Q Khan took the blame and false-glory smartly); and the subsequent proliferation to N Korea and Libya. As has been said clearly by world leaders, the irresponsible and chaotic terrorist prone state of Pakistan should never compare itself with a leading democracy such as India.
 
I didn't say India has a problem.

But the NSG sure seems to have one.

What I'm suggesting is that a country having N-weapons that

- is deliberately ambiguous about its policy of use of nuclear weapons
- has had proliferation issues in the not-too-distant past
- has doubts about civilian control of its weapons
- a fast rate of production of weapons [in relative terms]
- has a high proportion of utilisation of nuclear fuel for weapons programmes [compared to civilian use]; and
- and continues to develop and announce tactical weapons
-our nuclear doctrine is one word "IF";
-that was a need base proliferation. We needed money for our nuclear program. and it's 3-4 decade old scandal.
-it doesn't matter who controls it. Army and government both belongs to Pakistan. Civilians control civil nuclear plants. army controls armed nuclear weapons.
-About fast growing weapon stock. India is not slow either. we have a target to complete i.e. enough deterrence to wipe out any one who can wipe us off the map.
-Future energy plans include more use of nuclear power plants for energy.
- developing tactical weapons shouldn't been an issue. Many countries. in fact all nuclear countries have weapons with small range. It's only problem for india. India too have tactical nuclear weapons with range <=150km.
 
Force them to sign NPT ,Bring inspectors of IAEA to inspect all such secret weaponized Nuclear Facilities in India. Investigate the security lapse and smuggling of Nuclear material from India, only then allow India to even think about joining NSG.
USA has gone blind for countering China .....
The world has a simple choice. Either we burn coal or we burn uranium. Your rants sound lame.
 
India already has H-bomb since 80s when USSR handed several 200-250 Kt warheads to India.
 
-our nuclear doctrine is one word "IF";
-that was a need base proliferation. We needed money for our nuclear program. and it's 3-4 decade old scandal.
-it doesn't matter who controls it. Army and government both belongs to Pakistan. Civilians control civil nuclear plants. army controls armed nuclear weapons.
-About fast growing weapon stock. India is not slow either. we have a target to complete i.e. enough deterrence to wipe out any one who can wipe us off the map.
-Future energy plans include more use of nuclear power plants for energy.
- developing tactical weapons shouldn't been an issue. Many countries. in fact all nuclear countries have weapons with small range. It's only problem for india. India too have tactical nuclear weapons with range <=150km.

Thanks for replying.

1. That 'If' is the cause for concern. NSG membership is seen as a legal way to acquire not only technology but nuclear fuel as well. For this fuel is only permitted for civilian reactors (i.e. for power generation) it is a logical corollary that it frees up fuel from domestic / non-NSG sources for military application (i.e. enrichment for weapons).

NSG members therefore take it for granted that trading in fuel for civil use is bound to allow easier development of weapons. The question then shifts to under what circumstances such weapons would be used. Since Pakistan refuses to state unequivocally there is no way a supplier of fuel under NSG can be sure - and I suspect this makes them reluctant to trade: hence no hurry on the membership. [Note- this was the main concern when India got the waiver in 2008 but the slow rate of weaponisation alleviated this concern]

2. Well I believe it does matter who controls it. Weapon triggers in the hands of military officers are possibly more dangerous than in the hands of politicians. Military officers typically are more prone to taking risks and are focused on military objectives alone (as is their job). In a bad situation they might not consider bigger picture issues and are less likely to compromise. It is for this fear that nearly every N-weapons state (I have no info about China) has the button firmly in the hands of the government and not the army. This is compounded by the fact that the army exercises so much authority in Pakistan.

3. Tactical weapons - the development itself and the manner in which it was announced makes it clear they are being developed with real intention to be used first. I do not know if India has or does not have since there has never been any announcement on this - and that is how Pakistan should have done it - without making a show out of it.

4. I agree the scandal is old but recent pronouncements by China of 'giving' weapons tech to Pakistan (ok that was missile tech but it raises the question whether n-weapons tech will follow) stirs up doubts.

Putting these together you have, in the eye of these western countries, a nation currently pursuing a very active n-weapons programme, with apparently no hesitation to use those if need be and with the trigger lying with career-army officers who are less likely to have scruples in using them.

India has had to make some sacrifices to get the 2008 waiver and be in a position to win large scale support for the NSG. Weaponisation is slow, a no first-use commitment has been made, diversion for fuel to military use is harder and it has more or less accepted that Pakistan will have a bigger stockpile - each one an unpopular political decision. I think Pakistan wants the membership and benefits of the NSG but none of these restraints - and till that changes it will not win widespread support for its canidature.
 
Back
Top Bottom