India Should Supply Arms To Pakistan To Help Defend Its Borders Against U.S. Attacks

[Imran Khan]

 

[Imran Khan]

IF ALL THESE NOT WORKING PROPERLY THEN WE USE THIS I THINK ITS LAST OPTION

 

[daredevil]

India neither have the need nor the enthusiasm to supply any weapons to pakistan.

 

[Black Stone]

Interesting thread i must say...

 

[was]

I'm off of school home work 10 years ago. So, I'm enjoying my weekend.
Buon weekend (as they say in Italy)

boun fine settimana

 

[was]

this is stupid topic

 

[RescueRanger]

India neither have the need nor the enthusiasm to supply any weapons to pakistan.

Daredevil, dont tell us... It was Satish Chandra's Assistant who opened the thread, anyways i think we got the weapons side of things covered.

POF, PAWC Zindabad!

Thanks for the Pics Imran, i have a few knocking about from my last visit to Ideas and Safe/Sec Pakistan, will post when i find em...

 

[SatishChandra's Assistant]

The United States is attacking Pakistan's territory with utter impunity virtually every other day, killing dozens of people each time. Do you think any country can get away with attacking the United States territory even once? If the weapons side is "covered", why is Pakistan allowing that? To deter the United States, a country has to be able to deliver nuclear weapons to the continental United States territory. How many nuclear weapons can Pakistan deliver to the continental United States, with what delivery vehicles? It is stated in the earlier 26 posts in this thread that India needs to be able to deliver 10,000 nuclear warheads to the continental United States and post # 17 says "All those who are against India’s slavery to the firangis should pitch in. This includes all those against slavery to the firangis in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Doing so and contributing their bit to the task of ending firangi rule over India will be infinitely more effective in stopping firangi attacks on Pakistan, for example, -- which, as I have said, are attacks on India -- than anything else they could do. About a decade ago, in letters to the press, I had urged Pakistan to disseminate nuclear technology, materials and even weapons to other Muslim countries as widely as possible..." and post # 21 says "On the Bharat Rakshak online forum, an American who seems a C.I.A. specialist on India is asking that India acquiesce in a United States’ invasion and permanent occupation of Pakistan (and later of India). He says “even at the moment for example … Pakistan’s air-defenses have been electronically neutralized to allow the ingress of predator drones” and that “the USA has already electronically neutralized the Pakistani nuclear capabilities. The weapons are also dispersed in bits and pieces with no possibility of ever putting even one of these together. Doing so would invite a massive conventional or nuclear response from the USA. Only taking physical control and destruction of these weapons remains which should pose no major problems as the Pakistan armed forces are fully co-operative”...". This thread is about fighting a common enemy and it was in response to this initiative by Satish Chandra that Pakistan's National Security Adviser came to India about a week ago and met everyone -- including, for example, the head of the Opposition BJP party -- to take this initiative forward. The head of a Pakistan strategic think tank suggested a few days ago, in response to this initiative, that Pakistan's and India's nuclear arsenals be merged, though she has backed off from saying that now. In addition to the 26 posts earlier in this thread, the contents of the link in post # 1 need to be read, studied and absorbed.

 

[su-47]

The United States is attacking Pakistan's territory with utter impunity virtually every other day, killing dozens of people each time. Do you think any country can get away with attacking the United States territory even once? If the weapons side is "covered", why is Pakistan allowing that? To deter the United States, a country has to be able to deliver nuclear weapons to the continental United States territory. How many nuclear weapons can Pakistan deliver to the continental United States, with what delivery vehicles? It is stated in the earlier 26 posts in this thread that India needs to be able to deliver 10,000 nuclear warheads to the continental United States and post # 17 says "All those who are against India’s slavery to the firangis should pitch in. This includes all those against slavery to the firangis in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Doing so and contributing their bit to the task of ending firangi rule over India will be infinitely more effective in stopping firangi attacks on Pakistan, for example, -- which, as I have said, are attacks on India -- than anything else they could do. About a decade ago, in letters to the press, I had urged Pakistan to disseminate nuclear technology, materials and even weapons to other Muslim countries as widely as possible..." and post # 21 says "On the Bharat Rakshak online forum, an American who seems a C.I.A. specialist on India is asking that India acquiesce in a United States’ invasion and permanent occupation of Pakistan (and later of India). He says “even at the moment for example … Pakistan’s air-defenses have been electronically neutralized to allow the ingress of predator drones” and that “the USA has already electronically neutralized the Pakistani nuclear capabilities. The weapons are also dispersed in bits and pieces with no possibility of ever putting even one of these together. Doing so would invite a massive conventional or nuclear response from the USA. Only taking physical control and destruction of these weapons remains which should pose no major problems as the Pakistan armed forces are fully co-operative”...". This thread is about fighting a common enemy and it was in response to this initiative by Satish Chandra that Pakistan's National Security Adviser came to India about a week ago and met everyone -- including, for example, the head of the Opposition BJP party -- to take this initiative forward. The head of a Pakistan strategic think tank suggested a few days ago, in response to this initiative, that Pakistan's and India's nuclear arsenals be merged, though she has backed off from saying that now. In addition to the 26 posts earlier in this thread, the contents of the link in post # 1 need to be read, studied and absorbed.

are you sure u stay in the USA? Your posts are very racist, and based on nothing but paranoia. Pakistan should give nukes to other muslim countries? Think before you blab. Giving nukes to other countries will result in them using those nukes on their immediate enemies. A lot of nations are not responsible enough to have nukes. Besides, nuclear proliferation will result in a direct US invasion into pakistan to prevent more nukes being proliferated.

 

[EagleEyes]

Why would Pakistan give nuclear weapons to other countries? Giving nuclear weapons to other countries would decrease Pakistan's military power.

 

[RescueRanger]

Satish Chandra had "urged Pakistan to disseminate nuclear technology, materials and even weapons to other Muslim countries as widely as possible..." . In certain conditions, providing an ally with nuclear weapons may be necessary and desirable; before the start of the 2nd Gulf War, Pakistan and Egypt had proceeded to do just that because Pakistan had the nuclear weapons and Egypt had the location so that its aircraft could deliver nuclear weapons to European capitals such as Paris and a visiting Egyptian dignitary in Pakistan said the two countries will act together to save the Islamic "Ummah"; when Satish Chandra referred to this in a letter to the press, the United States turned the screws on Egyptian president Mubarak and Pakistan's president Musharraf and they dropped the plan. But the tactical details of how nuclear weapons can be deployed and used will depend on the particular situation; this thread is about the strategic issue.

I would like to ask a question, you refer to yourself in third person. Is Satish CHandra a defence analyst like Zahid Hamid or somthing?

 

[p2prada]

^^^^^^^^

This guy sounds like a complete moron.

His master Satish Chandra says India can grow 30% a year if the indian govt blindly prints money without respect to inflation, price control or even stability. LOL

 

[daredevil]

^^^^^^^^

This guy sounds like a complete moron.

His master Satish Chandra says India can grow 30% a year if the indian govt blindly prints money without respect to inflation, price control or even stability. LOL

Looks like Satish Chandra (SC) has brainwashed his assistant that he speaks about SC in third person terms. What a loser!!

 

[su-47]

growth at 30% a year cannot be sustained, and will have serious negative impact on the country in the long term, mainly due to inflation and over-consumption. remember that a few years back china was trying to curb her growth in order to contain inflation and sustain the growth.

 

[Raquib]

honestly i believe Pakistani Military is equiped with far better armor and weapons than India...and all these ideas seemed very stupid to me aswel!