Why is Pakistan afraid of international perception when testing its ICBM?

[Peregrine]

Having a handful of ICBMs will do squat. There is absolutely no way that Pakistan can pose any credible threat to the US mainland.

None.

I guess.......Russians and Chinese spent billions of dollars on building missiles for no reason?

 

[anathema]

Heavily crippled and their resources robbed of.

Isnt that the whole purpose of war itself?

 

[jai231179]

I think there is a red line and that line you dont cross and the US know it. Please dont be under any timid illusion - Pakistan has managed to exist with a country 6 times the size of itself and held its head up high. The fact that we have nukes will always keep the mad dogs at bay. Lately the USA are fully aware of venturing near the red line and the result of crossing it would be catastrophic - especially for Tel Aviv...

U will nuke Tel Aviv because the USA crossed the 'red line'? That's really retarded don't you think. You wouldn't have still scratched the mainland of the USA, but u'd have given the Americans every excuse to wipe your 4 provinces off the map.

I guess.......Russians and Chinese spent billions of dollars on building missiles for no reason?

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but didn't you guys just cut the education budget by half just so you could beef up the defence budget for WoT? How do u plan on paying for the ICBM if u r gonna test one?

 

[Awesome]

We need to be able to flatten Israel in the event that US ever gets fruity with us. AIPAC have made damn sure an attack on Tel Aviv is as good as an attack on Washington

That doesn't ensure MAD, its a weak man's way of thinking. It will cause Americans a slight hesitation at best, and not to forget Americans being puppets of the Jews is an academic theory at best. It goes against all norms of civilized human behavior. You need to be only concerned with the people who launch an attack on you. Also, logic dictates this is the sequence that will follow. US nukes Pakistan, Pakistan nukes Israel, then US nukes Pakistan again, then Pakistan is left with no one to hit back so US keeps nuking Pakistan to oblivion.

I won't say that the idea is not smart. Nothing about nukes flying all over the place is smart. But its just faulty planning to assume you have reached MAD in this way.

Each and every nation that can attack you, you should be able to attack them back.

 

[Contrarian]

I suggest you re-phrase that, there may have been Pakistani citizens involved in some incidents, but are you implying the State sponsors and supports these activities. !! ??

What is wrong with this statement? Dont try to use phrases like there 'may' have been Pakistani citizens involved in terrorist activities. There ARE Pakistani citizens involved in terrorist activities. And in those cases where Pakistani citizens are directly not involved, there terrorists trail more often than not has a Pakistani connection.

There is a reason why the Prime Minister of Britain publicly said that more than 2/3rds of the terror cases in UK have a Pakistani angle(Do google or search this forum itself for the link). Apart from that most of the countries of the globe have in some way or another, at one point or another, implied existence of some Pakistani connection with terrorism.

Now the big question is how in the world has Pakistan allowed all of this to happen over decades! Did they not know?

Please spare us the naivety that Pakistan (military) has not been involved in fanning Islamic terrorism atleast directly in South Asia. The 'World' agrees and Pakistani government figures (after their removal from govt ofcourse) have said the same - Pakistan's (state/military) propensity to use 'irregulars' or 'mujahideen' for gains that they cannot achieve otherwise.

While that policy 'may' have stopped after 2001-2, the fact is that they now cannot control(read direct to specific countries) their long favoured 'non state actors', is causing problems to Pakistan herself.

 

[VCheng]

....................
Each and every nation that can attack you, you should be able to attack them back.

That also means that one should also be able to develop the resources and the backing necessary to be able to mount a response to an attack, right? That is easier said than done.

 

[SMC]

Now the big question is how in the world has Pakistan allowed all of this to happen over decades! Did they not know?
Please spare us the naivety that Pakistan (military) has not been involved in fanning Islamic terrorism atleast directly in South Asia. The 'World' agrees and Pakistani government figures (after their removal from govt ofcourse) have said the same - Pakistan's (state/military) propensity to use 'irregulars' or 'mujahideen' for gains that they cannot achieve otherwise.

And the monster has now outgrown their control.

Very small 'world' you have, where Bharat and perhaps US are the only countries in that 'world'. I can't believe how many times bharatis say the whole world accuses Pakistani state of supporting terrorism. Well have you einsteins taken geography 101? Really, the whole world?

By your logic, US must be supporting terrorism since they've let TTP and BLA stay in Afghanistan for many, many years.

Can you actually provide any solid evidence? Kind of like what you ask when Bharat gets accused? (Btw, isn't there a word for that -- hypocrite, perhaps)

 

[DRaisinHerald]

That doesn't ensure MAD, its a weak man's way of thinking. It will cause Americans a slight hesitation at best, and not to forget Americans being puppets of the Jews is an academic theory at best. It goes against all norms of civilized human behavior. You need to be only concerned with the people who launch an attack on you. Also, logic dictates this is the sequence that will follow. US nukes Pakistan, Pakistan nukes Israel, then US nukes Pakistan again, then Pakistan is left with no one to hit back so US keeps nuking Pakistan to oblivion.

1) Is AIPAC a theory?
2) MAD can't really happen in this case. Logically speaking, even if both the US and Pak had exactly the same nuclear capabilities, Pak would be obliterated before the US because of it's smaller size
3) Civilized human behaviour doesn't exist in war...or does it?
4) You're right and wrong. There's tons of Muslim countries out there that can eventually be a threat to the US; yet only one Jewish nation. Wipe Eretz Israel, and you can bet their Messiah won't come out for another 3000 years. OFC you have to be Muslim to understand what I'm getting at.

Nuclear War is really in no interest to us, do hope it never happens. But in case it does, and in case the US happens to be involved, the most logical approach would be to kill the nearest enemy which happens to be their greatest ally as well.

 

[Peregrine]

You are twisting words and bringing your own conclusion..whos talking about annihilating any nation ? That will be stupid or foolish. Was Iraq annahilated , Af annahilated ?
Sure - you may lob a few ICBM's at US - US cities will be hit and people will be killed - there will be damage..(this is huge assumption). I dont even know how these missiles will reach mainland - with the technological advances US has.

But the following actions will make sure that missile bases are totally destroyed and not worthy to be fired again...ANd please lets keep the false sense of bravado out ....Nations and politics does not work that way - The whole world did not see America shaking when NK did a test of satellite...instead the whole world saw a absolutely worthless regime doing a testing of technology which can spell doom for its neighbours. Do you give great points to NK for being a model state - looks like you do ? Or your hatred of US is so high that it really doesnt matter who does what - if it is against US then wallah it should be applauded. America obviously being a ally to SK had to up the ante - they dont prefer to be mute spectators !

Other than going around in circles and singing a ballad about ''USA is mighty advanced'' you haven't been able to erect even a single point, which would suggest that USA can't be harmed by any means what so ever. All we have are your dogmas of deluded conception.
Secondly, the reference of NK, was to make a point, with you seeing things from different angle, doesn't change the reality and world's perception. I am against USA or not, the topic is not about my personal preferences, so lets not talk about ''Me''.
America cannot tolerate to have it's enemy states in possession of any technology that can be potentially dangerous to America and therefore we see vehement American opposition, cloaked as, we must stop ''nuclear proliferation'', ''communist regimes'', ''dictators'' blah blah blah

 

[Awesome]

That also means that one should also be able to develop the resources and the backing necessary to be able to mount a response to an attack, right? That is easier said than done.

Provided we work towards making the resources. So far all the people's suggestions have simply been "Back off, keep your head down and eyes low". Reminiscent of an old colonial era maitre'd teaching the people how to behave with the gora sahib. Something wrong is happening to you, at least have the correct attitude to not stand for it.

1) Is AIPAC a theory?
2) MAD can't really happen in this case. Logically speaking, even if both the US and Pak had exactly the same nuclear capabilities, Pak would be obliterated before the US because of it's smaller size

Sure, that's a lot truer MAD, but we can be MAD enough

3) Civilized human behaviour doesn't exist in war...or does it?

We fight for our visions for humanity. Cannot fight that fight leaving what makes us human. There is always a code.

4) You're right and wrong. There's tons of Muslim countries out there that can eventually be a threat to the US; yet only one Jewish nation. Wipe Eretz Israel, and you can bet their Messiah won't come out for another 3000 years. OFC you have to be Muslim to understand what I'm getting at.

Nuclear War is really in no interest to us, do hope it never happens. But in case it does, and in case the US happens to be involved, the most logical approach would be to kill the nearest enemy which happens to be their greatest ally as well.

Killing Israel for a crime the US makes is just nuts and won't prevent the US from committing that crime in the first place.

You are expecting the US to have a higher moral compass than you do. Unless you are now conceding you are the villain of this story.

 

[Peregrine]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but didn't you guys just cut the education budget by half just so you could beef up the defence budget for WoT? How do u plan on paying for the ICBM if u r gonna test one?

Your fatuous attempt to bring down the line of argument is a depiction of your ignorance and denial. Sorry, but i can't entertain you, more than this.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The Chinese can hit them, North Koreans can hit them. West lives with those things too and we haven't gone on the offensive against the west, ever compared to them.

NK can hit SK, maybe Japan, but they can't hit the contiguous US.

 

[jai231179]

1) Is AIPAC a theory?
2) MAD can't really happen in this case. Logically speaking, even if both the US and Pak had exactly the same nuclear capabilities, Pak would be obliterated before the US because of it's smaller size
3) Civilized human behaviour doesn't exist in war...or does it?
4) You're right and wrong. There's tons of Muslim countries out there that can eventually be a threat to the US; yet only one Jewish nation. Wipe Eretz Israel, and you can bet their Messiah won't come out for another 3000 years. OFC you have to be Muslim to understand what I'm getting at.

Nuclear War is really in no interest to us, do hope it never happens. But in case it does, and in case the US happens to be involved, the most logical approach would be to kill the nearest enemy which happens to be their greatest ally as well.

Having a fancy idea like that, u really find it surprising that the USA considers India a reliable nuclear power and NOT Pakistan?

One thing that really sets apart India and Pakistan..Indians don't go fighting all over the place. U guys on the other hand seem to stick up for the Muslim brotherhood at every given opportunity (even if it doesn't concern u), result being, almost all the problems u face today are self-inflicted. Nuking another unrelated country in a war simply because u r losing the fight is unethical, and definitely suicidal.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

You are expecting the US to have a higher moral compass than you do. Unless you are now conceding you are the villain of this story.

No; they're devoid of any war ethics and morals. But I'll stand by my views and be the villain if that means assuring victory/safety to Pakistan.

By the way, Asim, what do you think is the best way to take a giant, powerful enemy like the US down if they happens to invade us? ICBMs are out of the question obviously, we don't possess them.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Having a fancy idea like that, u really find it surprising that the USA considers India a reliable nuclear power and NOT Pakistan?

One thing that really sets apart India and Pakistan..Indians don't go fighting all over the place. U guys on the other hand seem to stick up for the Muslim brotherhood at every given opportunity (even if it doesn't concern u), result being, almost all the problems u face today are self-inflicted. Nuking another unrelated country in a war simply because u r losing the fight is unethical, and definitely suicidal.

I bet USA won't even consider China as a reliable nuclear power, neither it is Russia.

Does it really matter? Because anyone who poses a threat to them is not a reliable nuclear power!