US Planning to Snatch Pakistan's Nukes

[praveen]

He can mention fuses all he wants, all it is is analysis and informed speculation. Pakistan certainly won't be talking about its developments. At the end of the day Pakistan would not be making such a massive and rapid investment in its Plutonium production infrastructure if it was not confident in the data and designs it has.

As far as 'fissile material stock', as I said already, I don't really care if you want to claim India has '2 million warheads', it makes no difference so long as Pakistan has enough functioning warheads to pose a significant enough threat to India to ward of any unprovoked military aggression that crosses our 'red lines'. So far that appears to have worked, regardless of the fan-boy rhetoric of 'ask the Brigadier if he is afraid of nukes'.

Even Functioning warheads need working fuses to deliver nukes.Sorry AM He is a renowned Nuclear expert and his opinion is more valid when giving an impartial opinion and Laws of Physics apply even to Pakistanis

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I already have given answer

here it is

Your answer is that 'terrorists will take the nukes'?

That is not even on the horizon, leave alone the propaganda in the media.

And if 'terrorists get their hands on nukes', that means the Pakistani military is already decimated - there would be no other way that would happen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even Functioning warheads need working fuses to deliver nukes.Sorry AM He is a renowned Nuclear expert and his opinion is more valid when giving an impartial opinion and Laws of Physics apply even to Pakistanis

What evidence has he provided that Pakistan has no 'working fuses'?

When did I state that the laws of physics don't apply to Pakistan?

 

[ZaYYaF]

This is clear blackmail, If you are in a war with US or Israel why will you attack India? why will you threaten middle east ? Isn't that Blackmail ?

You simply don't get it at all. I will try it with less words than what AM been using, I hope I can make you understand it. For you it may seem a 'blackmail', but for us it is 'deterrence'. Get it now? Man you people cannot digest the fact that the two entities 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan' and 'Nuclear tech capability' has become indeed one, and you cannot do anything to separate them. Hope these terms are enough for your intellect.

 

[Nitin Goyal]

Your answer is that 'terrorists will take the nukes'?

That is not even on the horizon, leave alone the propaganda in the media.

And if 'terrorists get their hands on nukes', that means the Pakistani military is already decimated - there would be no other way that would happen.

If u think that than it is great

But then why we have so much fuss about the safety of pakistan's nukes ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First of all, US understands the dynamics in South Asia. Given the Pakistan’s insecurity and large conventional military imbalance vis a vis India, US understands the reason for Pakistan to maintain a deterrence. But the questions now is why the unbridled expansion of nuke arsenal

Because of perceived 'threats from the US'.

Pakistan's arsenal was reasonable in terms of deterring India, but with the US in the equation, it needs to be much larger, with a larger 'target list', to prevent the US from attacking Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If u think that than it is great

But then why we have so much fuss about the safety of pakistan's nukes ?

Propaganda and 'analysts/media gone wild'.

 

[praveen]

Abbottabad, even if it happened again, would be nowhere close to 'Pakistan's nuclear red lines'.

The 'joke' here is that you are equivocating that raid to unprovoked military aggression by the US against Pakistan to 'neutralize its nukes'. There was absolutely no danger of 'nuclear war', outside of the raid being mistaken for an Indian invasion, with the Abbottabad raid.

Keep enjoying the fires while they last, doesn't change my argument that the US is not going to be launching any massive military assaults against Pakistan given Pakistan's nuclear deterrent (in terms of attacking targets mentioned prior).

The US is waiting to get out of ****** .A bombing run by the US Strategic Command is enough

 

[Nitin Goyal]

You simply don't get it at all. I will try it with less words than what AM been using, I hope I can make you understand it. For you it may seem a 'blackmail', but for us it is 'deterrence'. Get it now? Man you people cannot digest the fact that the two entities 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan' and 'Nuclear tech capability' has become indeed one, and you cannot do anything to separate them. Hope these terms are enough for your intellect.

You keep your deterrence against enemy with whom you are fighting not against the states which have nothing to do with war. As AM is saying that we will nuke middle east states also, which is a clear case of Blackmail. This are the countries which help you all the time with aids and now you want to nuke them isn't that blackmail ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The US is waiting to get out of ****** .A bombing run by the US Strategic Command is enough

Why would they do a 'bombing run'?

 

[Nitin Goyal]

Propaganda and 'analysts/media gone wild'.

But they have proved right in case of pakistan .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You keep your deterrence against enemy with whom you are fighting not against the states which have nothing to do with war. As AM is saying that we will nuke middle east states also, which is a clear case of Blackmail. This are the countries which help you all the time with aids and now you want to nuke them isn't that blackmail ?

If Pakistan cannot attack the US directly, how else can it deter the US, besides threatening it indirectly, and therefore making the world pressure the US?

Pakistan must do whatever it can to prevent aggression against her.

 

[VCheng]

Why would we be in a war with the US? We are not threatening it? Why would the US attack Pakistan?

Answer those questions first. Pakistan's posture is defensive, in response to aggression. Explain why the US would initiate war against Pakistan. The rest of your post cannot be addressed till then.

AM: Great post, and to move the discussion forward, please allow me to play the Devil's advocate here for a moment, if I may:

Do you think there are any "red lines" from the US side that Pakistan cannot cross, and if so, do you see any set of circumstances that would create the conditions for a direct confrontation?

 

[Nitin Goyal]

If Pakistan cannot attack the US directly, how else can it deter the US, besides threatening it indirectly, and therefore making the world pressure the US?

Pakistan must do whatever it can to prevent aggression against her.

You can prevent them by having cooperation rather than threatening them with nukes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But they have proved right in case of pakistan .

Not at all - no threat to Pakistani nukes has been substantiated. No attacks have been conducted against Pakistani nuclear installations, and no attacks, even on the military bases, have been successful, outside of a few deaths and fireworks.

There simply is no reason whatsoever, so long as the Pakistani military remains intact, to argue that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are under threat of being taken over by terrorists.