Al-Khalid 2

[Contrarian]

well i'l stop acting like we are superpowers if u show atleast some courtesy and not call your "neighbours" 'rats' :-/

Actions of a few terrorists doesnt qualitfy for saying that the state wants to break off from India. And no1 is acting like a super power...consider teh statistics...Pakistan is a country smaller in size than India, it has lesser nukes, India is much larger, has more nukes. I didnt say we can do it without a sweat...we will pay a very heavy price yes, but we will win WITHOUT a doubt.

regard your own statements sir, before asking others to consider theirs.

 

[waz]

well i'l stop acting like we are superpowers if u show atleast some courtesy and not call your "neighbours" 'rats' :-/

Actions of a few terrorists doesnt qualitfy for saying that the state wants to break off from India. And no1 is acting like a super power...consider teh statistics...Pakistan is a country smaller in size than India, it has lesser nukes, India is much larger, has more nukes. I didnt say we can do it without a sweat...we will pay a very heavy price yes, but we will win WITHOUT a doubt.

regard your own statements sir, before asking others to consider theirs.

According to whom? The evidence suggests the stock piles are more or less the same with India perhaps having a dozen or so more.

If you could "win" why haven't you in all these years and the conflicts we fought apart from in 1971 which still plays into our hands as now you have a volatile neighbour to your east which is an independent nation as well.

 

[Contrarian]

well....lets say the stockpiles are roughly the same ( even by conservative estimates, all studies say that India has atleast SOME more nukes) , India is much much bigger than Pakista, thus if both countries use their nukes, India would only partially be destroyed whereas Pakistan would cease to exist.

2. It is indeed FAAAR better to have Bangladesh as opposed to Pakistan for MANY MANY reasons. Here are just SOME of them

1. Pakistan(united would be much bigger, have a much larger size, therefore incase of war, harder to occupy)

2. Would have much much more resources!!!! Bangladesh is full of natural gas, etc.

3. Pakistan would have two fronts to India, as opposed to one currently. Incase of war, it would be a logistical nightmare with armies attacking India from 2 sides! and that too diametrically opposite! and India is huge, the difference b/w east and west accordingly is also huge!

4. Pakistan would have more ports, etc, therefore bigger navy, India wont be able to enforce a complete naval blockade.

5.Pakistan would have a much larger population, thus she would have a much higher talent pool.

and many many more reasons....overall increasing the lethality and problems of Pakistan MANYFOLD. THUS::

Even though Bangladesh is unstable, it is faar better to have Bangladesh instead of East Pakistan...we have deals with them, we get natural gas and other resources from them, and there are many many more factors that play right into OUR hands and not yours.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hmmm maybe this thread should be moved to a "general arguement" area?

it doesn't seem to be about the Ak2 anymore

 

[Hellfire]

mr waz and mr mishra ..... u both are bit off facts ..... indian ready weapons are in excess of 400 + as of today in various sub-kiloton ranges and they are purely the so called tactical warheads ..... pakistan on the other hand is about 70 or so ...... its got to do more with your processing facilities, cyclotrons, your generation capacity and your programme duration ..... now if one is to even say Pakistan developed nuclear energy even in 1989 then also they have to catch up with over 40 years (indian program was ready for a bomb in 1949 itself if given a go ahead ) so its futile to argue over it, now anyone who wants to argue with this logic ..... be delusional ..... and yes thank you keyseroze sir ..... you are absolutely right ..... am trying to locate an alkhalid and arjun combined forum where we can really have a meaning ful discussion over these 2 largely indegenous programmes ........ can you guide so some place where there is no free for all? and like you said .... general argument forum? thank you

 

[sherdil76]

i think the nest AK should have more reactive armor i.e. extended turret to front and both side, something like this... (see attachements)

what do you think??

 

[MadDog]

Well sir...Pak has tested Shaheen II...bringing calcutta into range..so ur claim
tht india ill be partialy destroyed is nullified..its completey in Pak's range...all of it...and vice versa.....now...in my view...the country which uses nukes first will exist..tht depends on the situation...but Pak's nuke doctrine is "First Use Policy"..just as Israel has and US had during cold war...cuz the adversary had more conventional forces.
Hope every thing becomes clear now.

 

[Hellfire]

Well sir...Pak has tested Shaheen II...bringing calcutta into range..so ur claim
tht india ill be partialy destroyed is nullified..its completey in Pak's range...all of it...and vice versa.....now...in my view...the country which uses nukes first will exist..tht depends on the situation...but Pak's nuke doctrine is "First Use Policy"..just as Israel has and US had during cold war...cuz the adversary had more conventional forces.
Hope every thing becomes clear now.

not until and unless you are able to completely to remove the C4I and the second strike capability of the opposition. PA does not have the necessary number of weapons/delivery weapons to do that even if you can hit port blair.

Its no doubt that PA is ahead in fielding missiles with proven tech being acquired from North Korea and China and being tested platforms are well developed, but the fact remains that a single warhead per city does not achieve the aim of complete destruction of both the opposing N-assets and C4I a fact necessary to win a nuclear war. And what is winning one, is anybody's guess!

India adopted a second use policy with view to threat it faces. In no ways can china now do a repeat 1962, hard lessons have been learnt on both sides, with economies the new battle ground. As for Pakistan, there should be no threat there also. So second strike is within reasoning. On other hand for PA a first use policy is in sync with the accepted fact of conventional military loss in all scenarios, so its a die-taking-as-many-theory, one which I dont think is wrong from Pakistan's point of view. Now can someone direct me to alkhalid/arjun discussion please?

 

[Hellfire]

i think the nest AK should have more reactive armor i.e. extended turret to front and both side, something like this... (see attachements)

what do you think??

great looking machine ...... is this variant 2?

 

[arslan_treen]

great looking machine ...... is this variant 2?

No sir thats the original Al khalid just rolling out from the factory with out any additional armour or Era plating which are added to the one going to the battle field .

 

[HASANITALIA]

not until and unless you are able to completely to remove the C4I and the second strike capability of the opposition. PA does not have the necessary number of weapons/delivery weapons to do that even if you can hit port blair.

Its no doubt that PA is ahead in fielding missiles with proven tech being acquired from North Korea and China and being tested platforms are well developed, but the fact remains that a single warhead per city does not achieve the aim of complete destruction of both the opposing N-assets and C4I a fact necessary to win a nuclear war. And what is winning one, is anybody's guess!

India adopted a second use policy with view to threat it faces. In no ways can china now do a repeat 1962, hard lessons have been learnt on both sides, with economies the new battle ground. As for Pakistan, there should be no threat there also. So second strike is within reasoning. On other hand for PA a first use policy is in sync with the accepted fact of conventional military loss in all scenarios, so its a die-taking-as-many-theory, one which I dont think is wrong from Pakistan's point of view. Now can someone direct me to alkhalid/arjun discussion please?

i dont speak english well i understand wat u saying some thing india strike nuke on pakistan 1 o 2 strike well i tell u example of zia when they say (if india nuke pakistan no problem muslim they contiue live in other region but if pakistan nuke india no hindu - problem )

 

[Hellfire]

i dont speak english well i understand wat u saying some thing india strike nuke on pakistan 1 o 2 strike well i tell u example of zia when they say (if india nuke pakistan no problem muslim they contiue live in other region but if pakistan nuke india no hindu - problem )

no i dont mean that ...... i was quoting over statements of how india will be completely destroyed due to first strike capability and nuclear war is winnable ..... I dont agree to either ..... any nation in nuclear war will suffer ... first strike or second strike .... anyways thanks for zia's statement but ... its not about hindu/muslim for me ..... warhead wont differentiate ...

 

[SSMtr]

no i dont mean that ...... i was quoting over statements of how india will be completely destroyed due to first strike capability and nuclear war is winnable ..... I dont agree to either ..... any nation in nuclear war will suffer ... first strike or second strike .... anyways thanks for zia's statement but ... its not about hindu/muslim for me ..... warhead wont differentiate ...

i find it very sad, until british imperialism arrived in asia hindus and muslims always lived peacefully with each other but after the brit occupation the conflict between both breakes out.

i just can say please dont let eternal forces bring you both to a war! britain is thousands of kilometers away from you they want you both to kill each other because they can easily controll you then!

be clever and live in peace with your neighbors! diplomacy always the best choice.

 

[jsm0098]

no i dont mean that ...... i was quoting over statements of how india will be completely destroyed due to first strike capability and nuclear war is winnable ..... I dont agree to either ..... any nation in nuclear war will suffer ... first strike or second strike .... anyways thanks for zia's statement but ... its not about hindu/muslim for me ..... warhead wont differentiate ...

hellfire..just search the youtube n u will come to know abt ur ARJUN u know wat the uploader called arjun? ARJUNK..no hard feelings but the uploader has facts.dont know moderators allow to paste the link but i will try.

 

[saiko]

The only nation crazy enough to think they can "win" in a nuclear war is China.. .and that was under Mao, probably not so now.

At best, limited scope conventional wars are in the books for India/Pakistan in the future that will reach ceasefire before any one side gets a decisive advantage.