Fourth Plutonium reactor under construction

[Developereo]

**** sake some ppl annoy me with their lack of understanding.....all the weapons of war mentioned above are conventionel weapons, their is no comparison with nuclear warheads.
Let me explain bit more, india buying so many conventional weapons in a sign that india is moving away from a nuclear based stratergy(which is good for pakistan).....

Where as pakistan is making more warheads, that indicates a nuclear based stratergy for war (i pesonally have no problem with it because pakistan can't really afford conventional weapons in substancial numbers)

Nuclear weapons are for defence only, whereas conventional weapons are dual-use and increase offensive capability.

So it is India, not Pakistan, which is escalating the arms race and ratcheting up tensions with the conventional buildup.

 

[Leviza]

Great stuff Pakistan.....keep going ....

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

What I feel is, two reactors would be meant for producing tritium and two plutonium. This should give them ingredients for one physics package each year, and if Albright and Co. are right and we do have an advanced, smaller design, for two physics packages.

 

[farhan_9909]

how many Plutonium reactor does india has

 

[Sinnerman108]

The title of the thread should be

fourth plutonium reactor AT KHUSHAB.

 

[Frankenstein]

US should be warned, that its none of there business and they should stop poking there nose everywhere

 

[rissriva]

Nuclear weapons are for defence only, whereas conventional weapons are dual-use and increase offensive capability.

So it is India, not Pakistan, which is escalating the arms race and ratcheting up tensions with the conventional buildup.

30 Odd nukes are more than enough for defense if I consider India to be the only counter force. No body will be having objection with Pakistan having nukes, had it been a stable country. The later is not true so more nukes add to more responsibility, more cost to the exchequer for the maintenance and for a poor country which is totally dependent on foreign aid, its unrealistic.

 

[unicorn148]

MMRCA
T-50
AMCA
C-130
Global Master
Apache
P8i


ye sab bachoon ko dekhanay kiliye kareed raha hey India ???? *****

India is big country and has a vast coast line and is large economy so to defend all these we need them but nuclear weapons are not a solution for every thing

 

[Stealth_fighter]

pak should built nuclear reactor for electricity rather than making nuclear weapons

 

[nirreich]

Why Pakistan need so many nuclear weapons? It already has enough (~80-100) to deter India and to destroy its urban centres.

Since conducting nuclear tests in May 1998 Pakistan successfully deterred India from a military response to Kargil operation in 1999, and to the terror attacks against India's parliament in New Delhi and against India's financial centre in Mumbai. So, why investing so many resources in building a large plutonium programme?

Anyone?

 

[Leviza]

Why Pakistan need so many nuclear weapons? It already has enough (~80-100) to deter India and to destroy its urban centres.

Since conducting nuclear tests in May 1998 Pakistan successfully deterred India from a military response to Kargil operation in 1999, and to the terror attacks against India's parliament in New Delhi and against India's financial centre in Mumbai. So, why investing so many resources in building a large plutonium programme?

Anyone?

I think every legal country have right to make defense and no other country can tell other how much they need.
As far as i know Israel dose not need any nuclear weapons as there are nukes in middle east countries so why Israel have any?
this creates discussion with no end.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Why Pakistan need so many nuclear weapons? It already has enough (~80-100) to deter India and to destroy its urban centres.
...

What makes you think Pakistan's nuclear doctrine is countervalue, even counterdemographics? It is counterforce, and therein lies the answer to the numeric abundance required of the active stockpile.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

In the beginning I too was questioning the burgeoning plutonium program, but I think I understand the motives better now:

• Geopolitics. More lax alternatives to the NPT are being floated, and India might play the good boy and sign them, forcing Pakistan to do so too. Pakistan needs a sufficient stockpile before going into such a treaty where producing further plutonium is not a choice. The last rush before the finish line. Most people think this is the major reason.
  
  
• Again, geopolitics. The Bharato-US nuclear deal is believed to massively help Bhaarat, and not simply in its civilian program. They'd in future be able to make smaller and therefore more warheads from the same amount of their Pu. And more types of them. Pakistan appears to rush towards parity before they test once more and sign the treaties. That would be the sole window for a Pakistani test, and we don't want to miss the boat.
  
  However let us understand something. Such a plant is configured to produce either of two things, both necessary in a Pu bomb. So if with K-1 Pakistan was making 1 bomb per year (and that would mean running K-2 as well to provide the necessary Tritium), it would not jump to 4 with K-4 when it comes online in about twelve years from now, but 2 per year. Yes, that also means the estimates by Mr. Albright et al. might be over-estimating to twice Pakistan's real stockpile. And creating hysteria among allies, and pushing South-Asia into an arms race. Makes you wonder what agenda are they working for?
  
  The all-encompassing Indo-US deal and the absence of a civ-only scaled-down version for Pakistan is also pushing it, I believe , to create related technologies right now before the chance is no more. What if the new reactors are not only for mil-use? What if one of them or an enrichment plant (we haven't made one yet, we only got a pilot one) is put under IAEA surveillance later? A large support infrastructure is needed in case someone agrees to build us a bigger power plant for electric power generation. Building that infrastructure would be difficult after the treaties, and we'd have to rely on imported fuel, coolant etc. Look how hard it is proving for India to obtain Uranium from Australia and Canada.
  
  
• Inadequacy in the contingency of a war today. There might be parity in the stockpile with India, but in the event of hostilities India can more than double its warhead-stockpile from its un-weaponized plutonium stock. This hints to doctrinal changes which demand their separate thread. Some hints: CSD and post-2008 scenario, ER bombs, counterforce attack under Bhaarat's countervalue threshold. This is the only disturbing part of the whole deal.

 

[Burger Boy]

Why Pakistan need so many nuclear weapons? It already has enough (~80-100) to deter India and to destroy its urban centres.

Since conducting nuclear tests in May 1998 Pakistan successfully deterred India from a military response to Kargil operation in 1999, and to the terror attacks against India's parliament in New Delhi and against India's financial centre in Mumbai. So, why investing so many resources in building a large plutonium programme?

Anyone?

Pakistan already has a sizable ballistic missile program..... I think because plutonium weapons are needed for nuclear capable cruise missiles which can be fired from ships and eventually submarines.

 

[khurasaan1]

Why Pakistan need so many nuclear weapons? It already has enough (~80-100) to deter India and to destroy its urban centres.

Since conducting nuclear tests in May 1998 Pakistan successfully deterred India from a military response to Kargil operation in 1999, and to the terror attacks against India's parliament in New Delhi and against India's financial centre in Mumbai. So, why investing so many resources in building a large plutonium programme?

Anyone?

India is not a small country ...so we need at least 500Nukes to keep us safe LOL...Its so simple to understand logic...