What's new

‘I Saved My Country From Nuclear Blackmail’

You will never capture any of our cities, if you want to act so sure about everything then so will I. Capturing means no more resistance, you might surely invade some of the Pakistani territory but we will hold and reclaim them. It is the backlash into India you will have to worry about.

Edit: No Pakistani or Indian will ever concede that their territory will be stepped on by foreign boots. If you wanted to continue the hypothetical discussion, that if X happens what will [insert party] do but you once you use your own prejudices to come up with conclusions, there the discussion ends.

I was not talking about war but was saying that nukes are very important for your existence.You drifted the discussions towards what will happen in a war.
 
.
Pakistan’s nuclear program has always been a target for Western propaganda and false accusations. I would like to make it clear that it was an Indian nuclear explosion in May 1974 that prompted our nuclear program, motivating me to return to Pakistan to help create a credible nuclear deterrent and save my country from Indian nuclear blackmail.
After 15 years in Europe with invaluable experience in enrichment technology, I came to Pakistan in December 1975 and was given the task of producing nuclear weapons by then–prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. On Dec. 10, 1984, I informed Gen. Zia-ul-Haq that we could explode a device at a week’s notice, whenever he so desired. We achieved credible nuclear capacity by the second half of the ’80s, and the delivery system was perfected in the early ’90s. For a country that couldn’t produce bicycle chains to have become a nuclear and missile power within a short span—and in the teeth of Western opposition—was quite a feat.

The question of how many weapons are required for credible deterrence against India is purely academic. India is engaged in a massive program to cope with the nonexistent threat posed by China and in order to become a superpower. India doesn’t need more than five weapons to hurt us badly, and we wouldn’t need more than 10 to return the favor. That is why there has been no war between us for the past 40 years.
I have little knowledge of the present status of our program, as I left Kahuta, Pakistan’s main nuclear facility, 10 years ago. As the pioneer of the program, my guess is that our efforts have been to perfect the design, reduce the size of the weapons to fit on the warheads of our missile systems, and ensure a fail-safe system for their storage. A country needs sufficient weapons to be stored at different places in order to have a second-strike capability. But there is a limit to these requirements.

Don’t overlook the fact that no nuclear-capable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn. Had Iraq and Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn’t have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently. If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country—present-day Bangladesh—after disgraceful defeat.
There is a total misconception about the money spent on our nuclear program. When we started, our budget was just $10 million per year, increasing to $20 million per year when at full capacity, including all salaries, transport, medical care, housing, utilities, and purchases of technical equipment and materials. This is but half the cost of a modern fighter aircraft. The propaganda about spending exorbitant sums on the nuclear program circulated by ignorant, often foreign-paid, Pakistanis has no substance.
India and Pakistan understand the old principle that ensured peace in the Cold War: mutually assured destruction. The two can’t afford a nuclear war, and despite our saber rattling, there is no chance of a nuclear war that would send us both back to the Stone Age. What pains me is that we gave Pakistan nuclear capability for its self-esteem and deterrence against adversaries. With our sovereignty thus secure, I urged various governments to concentrate on development to raise the people’s standard of living. Unfortunately, successive incompetent and ignorant rulers never bothered to work on the greater national interest. We are far worse off now than we were 20, or even 40, years ago when we were subjected to embargoes.
Our nuclear-weapons program has given us an impregnable defense, and we are forced to maintain this deterrence until our differences with India are resolved. That would lead to a new era of peace for both countries. I hope I live to see Pakistan and India living harmoniously in the same way as the once bitter enemies Germany and France live today.

Written By : Dr.A.Q.Khan

Another one of those me and my highness and I did this and I did that...hey Doc, give it up now...time to start worrying about after life
 
.
Yeah whatever. Terrorists and madmen have always come up with the most convincing of excuses to justify their deeds. This one is no different.
 
.
Ok he saved Pakistan...Now what Mr AQ Khan ?

Any new venture from your side ?
 
.
Yeah whatever. Terrorists and madmen have always come up with the most convincing of excuses to justify their deeds. This one is no different.

So what are you suggesting? Pakistan should not have acquired nukes after India started the nuclear arms race in South Asia. If the nukes are such a nuisance, India should have never acquired them in the first place. And please dont use the Chinese card, because in 1974 the Soviets were getting ready to blast China back into the stone age. Maybe your memory is vague but after India exploded her nuke in 1998, the statements of your politicians especially Advani is worth reading.

Ok he saved Pakistan...Now what Mr AQ Khan ?

Any new venture from your side ?

Nops, hes happily retired and enjoying a very comfortable life.
 
.
So what are you suggesting? Pakistan should not have acquired nukes after India started the nuclear arms race in South Asia. If the nukes are such a nuisance, India should have never acquired them in the first place. And please dont use the Chinese card,

It was actually Chinese and American card, as per some declassified documents.


Also Indira Gandhi had asked for development of 8000km Ballistic missile in early 1970s.


because in 1974 the Soviets were getting ready to blast China back into the stone age.

How does that affect nuclear deterrence for India?
 
.
It was actually Chinese and American card, as per some declassified documents.


Also Indira Gandhi had asked for development of 8000km Ballistic missile in early 1970s.




How does that affect nuclear deterrence for India?

India was Soviet Unions closest ally. China had 12 nuclear weapons and they all were focused against Soviet Union. There was no way China could spare nukes against India. If China even thought about aiming her nukes against India, the Soviets would have obliterated their nuclear capability. The only reason why India went nuclear was because of the prestige that goes along with it. Indira Gandhi had strong aspirations to make India a global power. So far the explanations offered by Indian members on this board are vague to convince me that India acquired nuclear weapons to check mate China.
 
.
India was Soviet Unions closest ally.

That doesn 't translate into some agreement of Soviet Union providing India a nuclear umbrella.

Also, any such possible secret agreements if any would mean India to make more concession to Soviets on its foreign policy, for instance Indira Gandhi reluctant to join Soviet provided security plan aimed at China.

China had 12 nuclear weapons and they all were focused against Soviet Union. There was no way China could spare nukes against India. If China even thought about aiming her nukes against India, the Soviets would have obliterated their nuclear capability.



Let us assume all the above is true and accurate.

Do you think Indian Govt would have known or capable of estimating Chinese nuclear arsenal in 1970s?


The only reason why India went nuclear was because of the prestige that goes along with it. Indira Gandhi had strong aspirations to make India a global power.

Possibly one of the reasons, not the only reason.

So far the explanations offered by Indian members on this board are vague to convince me that India acquired nuclear weapons to check mate China.

Like i said earlier, it more of symbolic message to both USA and China, like the American believe.

The Nixon Administration and the Indian Nuclear Program, 1972-1974
 
.
The truth is that you need nukes to save your country.That is the reason why whenever there is talk of an India-Pak war a Pakistani's reaction is "lets nuke them" coz you know your Army is not gonna last that long.

OTOH India doesnt need nukes to win a war.Our cold start doctrine was enough for you guys to get scared and a special meeting was arranged by the Corp Commanders in GHQ.

I think you are in a big disadvantage in a war anyways.You have such big plain land in Punjab and south of it where the IA Armoured corp can send waves and waves of tanks in and it would be very hard for you to stop them.

I believe nukes are essential for you country's survival.

i agree with the waves theory & plains of punjab theory!

however scared of cold start? that is a bit over the top don't you think? because clearly COLD START is not achieavable for such a large army. besides we have contingency plan for it. worked out with our missile systems
 
.
I can't believe this piece was written by AQ Khan. Refreshingly different from what we've been fed by a biased media. Agreed he is notorious as a nuclear proliferator, but he talks sense in his article.

The question is why is Pakistan continuing to increase its nukes on a massive scale when less than half that is sufficient for a viable nuclear deterrent? It has earned the ignominious distinction of becoming the fastest growing nation where nukes are concerned, and not economic growth.

Now some will blast away and say that India is doing the same too. But they forget that India is facing a two front threat - Pakistan as well as the far bigger adversary, China and therefore the need to have an adequate deterrent. And yet, India doesn't have the fastest growing nuke arsenal unlike Pakistan!

As AQ Khan rightly says:

There is no chance of a nuclear war that would send us both back to the Stone Age. What pains me is that we gave Pakistan nuclear capability for its self-esteem and deterrence against adversaries. With our sovereignty thus secure, I urged various governments to concentrate on development to raise the people’s standard of living. Unfortunately, successive incompetent and ignorant rulers never bothered to work on the greater national interest. We are far worse off now than we were 20, or even 40, years ago when we were subjected to embargoes.

Our nuclear-weapons program has given us an impregnable defense, and we are forced to maintain this deterrence until our differences with India are resolved. That would lead to a new era of peace for both countries. I hope I live to see Pakistan and India living harmoniously in the same way as the once bitter enemies Germany and France live today.


Well said! :tup: But is anyone listening?
 
.
i agree with the waves theory & plains of punjab theory!

however scared of cold start? that is a bit over the top don't you think? because clearly COLD START is not achieavable for such a large army. besides we have contingency plan for it. worked out with our missile systems

I am glad you understood my points with respect to the plains on eastern border of Pakistan.

Regarding the "cold start doctrine" to be honest most Indian themselves dont have an idea what cold start exactly means.Cold Start is only possible for such a large Army to achieve quick responses.In simpler terms it means that the reaction time of IA would be reduced and there will be no strike or holding corps.So whichever is where will start advancing without waiting for strike corps to come hence saving a lot of time which will make the war short and more time will be available to us to achieve our objectives.
 
. .
I am glad you understood my points with respect to the plains on eastern border of Pakistan.

Regarding the "cold start doctrine" to be honest most Indian themselves dont have an idea what cold start exactly means.Cold Start is only possible for such a large Army to achieve quick responses.In simpler terms it means that the reaction time of IA would be reduced and there will be no strike or holding corps.So whichever is where will start advancing without waiting for strike corps to come hence saving a lot of time which will make the war short and more time will be available to us to achieve our objectives.

cold start is a good concept on paper but actually implementing it is a whole different ball game. besides in the era of EARLY WARNING it is harder to implement than ever before.
 
.
cold start is a good concept on paper but actually implementing it is a whole different ball game. besides in the era of EARLY WARNING it is harder to implement than ever before.

Early warning would be good incase of deployments comming from far away but in cold start the war would start without waiting for any such formations to come ie from the forward bases without waiting for far away formations to come.
 
.
Early warning would be good incase of deployments comming from far away but in cold start the war would start without waiting for any such formations to come ie from the forward bases without waiting for far away formations to come.

i hope you understand that during "PEACE TIME" there is no army deployed in forward bases! its mostly Rangers for us and BSF for you.

heavy artillery,mechanised infantary and all are stored away. So this point of "without waiting,attacking" is IMPOSSIBLE!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom