Iran tests Submarine-to-Surface Missile

[KashifAsrar]

But as a Pakistani, I wouldn't want to see nuclear armed neighbours both on the East and West borders. Regimes change and their goals do as well. Best way would be to keep a balance.

Regarding the missile firing submarines and boats. These are only good against GCC countries and against unarmed oil tankers. Persian Gulf is not very deep and these don't stand a ghost of a chance against sophisticated navies such as the USN.

Your statement is naive, to say least or delibrately mis-leading and provocative !! You as a Pakistani can bear uncle SAM, with enough nukes to destroy the world several time over, just on your neck, all the time. You do not bother it !! But you are worried if a Muslim country acquires nukes !! It is a threat to you !!
By concluding that Iran is threating the USN, by its missile test, you are putting the realities and facts upside down. The world KNOWS who is THREATINING whom ?!! Does pakistan testing its nuclear or ballistic missiles deserve a same comment from say, an Iranian? Or Arab?
Kashif

 

[niaz]

Your statement is naive, to say least or delibrately mis-leading and provocative !! You as a Pakistani can bear uncle SAM, with enough nukes to destroy the world several time over, just on your neck, all the time. You do not bother it !! But you are worried if a Muslim country acquires nukes !! It is a threat to you !!
By concluding that Iran is threating the USN, by its missile test, you are putting the realities and facts upside down. The world KNOWS who is THREATINING whom ?!! Does pakistan testing its nuclear or ballistic missiles deserve a same comment from say, an Iranian? Or Arab?
Kashif

I am just stating a possibility. A muslim country doesnot imply that they wont fight you. Zahir Shah was a threat to Pakistan for fermenting the Pakhtoonistan trouble. Shah of Iran amassed troops on Baluchistan during 1971. I heard him on TV saying that if Pakistan breaks up, Iran wanted Baluchistan. And the current Mid East mess started by Iraq invading Iran and subsequently Iraq invading Kuwait. Who is being naive?

All it means is that a nuclear Iran being a threat to Pakistan can't be ruled out altogether. As far as US is concerned there isnt any one can do so we have no choice but to accept it. Must we also do the same for Iran. Dont forget Iran and India are very close and there were hints that Iran was one of the countries behind Baluchistan trouble.

Iran is being threatened by US. But why this show of strength by Iran if no threat is intended.

 

[KashifAsrar]

Your FEAR is quite open. You are not stating the possibility rather distorting the present situations by comparing it to the SHAH's rein of terror.

And the current Mid East mess started by Iraq invading Iran ..

As you are mentioning yourself IRAN is always at the receiving end of the aggresor, NOT the other way round!!

As far as US is concerned there isnt any one can do so we have no choice but to accept it.

But when you face uncle SAM you have NO CHOICE !! It mean that POWER is every thing !! If IRAN is safegaurding its interest then what is wrong?

Dont forget Iran and India are very close

And it is the same INDIA the FRIEND who voted against IRAN in UNO in recent conflict !! And it is the same FRIEND INDIA to whom Iran said no to cheap GAS !!

Check your basics first. Pakistan's threat is not IRAN but Uncle SAM !!
those who do not acknowldge it are living in a fool's paradise and would soon pay the heaviest possible price for it !! ALLAH save all Muslims !!

 

[Neo]

Niaz and Kashif,

You both have valid points!

Our main concern is not a nuclear armed Iran, bigger threat is coming from The States. Its widely believed that on the longer run US would want to neutralise our nuclear capability. If we lose our nukes, we'll lose our main deterrance.
I believe Pakistan today exists because of our nukes, without them we could have been attacked by the US altogether with Iraq and Afghanistan or even India in 2002!

Iran on the other hand can not be fully trusted. We may not have border dispute, Iran still has closer ethnic connection with Balochistan and remains a possible threat.
Another issue is oil, once we start exploiting oil reserves in Balochistan it might cause troubles between the two countries as Iranian oil will be flowing into Balochistan!

Btw, the way Teheran handled the AQ Khan issue shows they can not be trusted!

So I won't support a nuclear Iran with current regime.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

If we lose our nukes, we'll lose our main deterrance.

Nukes ain't a deterrance. It's a suicide waiting to happen ... and that's why it works. It ain't about deterring the other guy. It's about you doing everything in your power to avoid using your own nukes.

 

[A.Rahman]

Nukes ain't a deterrance. It's a suicide waiting to happen ... and that's why it works. It ain't about deterring the other guy. It's about you doing everything in your power to avoid using your own nukes.

more like a suicide bomber.if you know what I mean :what1:

 

[KashifAsrar]

Nukes ain't a deterrance. It's a suicide waiting to happen ... and that's why it works. It ain't about deterring the other guy. It's about you doing everything in your power to avoid using your own nukes.

So do you mean to say SIR that AMERICA and EUROPE would commit SUICIDE before asian counries !!
Do not try to teach a wrong lessons to the students here !! ...
If this is the case then let west implement, atleast, a full FMCT or NPT and adhere to it, if they can not destroy there nukes in the stores in a 'ready-to-use' state, all the time.

POWER is the name of the game !!! It was all through the human civilization and would remain so EVER !!

NEO has a valid point when he says that Pakistan would have been history by this time had it not have the NUKES !!! HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !! This is the problem with Pakistan, as west in general and Uncle SAM in particular recognises. These people know the value of thier nukes !! In plain words PAKISTAN knows meaning of POWER. IRAN is going the same path so it must be stopped by all western logic!!
By the way your suggestion is a typical western 'ADVICE' to behave and be a 'NICE BOY' around the corner !! It has no more appeal in Muslim world !!
Kashif

 

[Spring Onion]

Nukes ain't a deterrance. It's a suicide waiting to happen ... and that's why it works. It ain't about deterring the other guy. It's about you doing everything in your power to avoid using your own nukes.

Sir What you think is deterrance ????

The US and other big powers developed ther Nukes and thn spread these to weak countries no matter whatever the mod of spread. Now the US is developing Anti this and Anti that weapons so if u think its deterrance thn how can countries like that get these new developments i dont think so the US will allow that.
Does it mean they should not go for nukes ??


So What you think is deterrance???

 

[Mansoor A Qureshi]

Iranian oil will be flowing into Balochistan!

Dear Neo,
Can you explain this, i couldnt get it

Thanks

 

[Neo]

Dear Neo,
Can you explain this, i couldnt get it

Thanks

I'm not sure how much is true but back in 1958 Islamabad and Teheran signed a secret pact that would prohibit Pakistan to drill and explore oil for next 50 years in the border region with Iran including the lower Makran coastal area's.
Iran feared that Iranian oilfields in Estern Iran would lose the flow due higher altitude if Pakistan started to explore in lower Makran.

The treaty expires in 2008.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

So do you mean to say SIR that AMERICA and EUROPE would commit SUICIDE before asian counries !!

We were ready to take the rest of the world with us. About the only place that was relatively safe was central mid and Southern Africa and that's only because they're already in the Stone Age. No scenario that I am aware of that did not drag every major country into that fight.

Do not try to teach a wrong lessons to the students here !! ...

You have not learned that lesson.

If this is the case then let west implement, atleast, a full FMCT or NPT and adhere to it, if they can not destroy there nukes in the stores in a 'ready-to-use' state, all the time.

That tiger is out of its cage. No one is putting him back. The best anyone can do is to keep an eye on it

POWER is the name of the game !!! It was all through the human civilization and would remain so EVER !!

That is a whole bunch of crap. Small countries have survived just as good as the big ones throughout history.

NEO has a valid point when he says that Pakistan would have been history by this time had it not have the NUKES !!!

Bullcrap. Pakistan is still here. The USSR is gone.

These people know the value of thier nukes !!

You don't get it. We know the insanity of nukes ... or at least we used to.

In plain words PAKISTAN knows meaning of POWER. IRAN is going the same path so it must be stopped by all western logic!!

Oh get off it, the N5 can wipe you off the face of the earth without blinking an eye and all you guys can do is to drop a bomb on your own cities that the enemy might have captured. You don't have power. You have bragging rights.

By the way your suggestion is a typical western 'ADVICE' to behave and be a 'NICE BOY' around the corner !! It has no more appeal in Muslim world !!

I couldn't give a rats *** about the Muslim world. You guys all think nukes are a substitute for your penis. They ain't. You want nukes? Fine. Only just realize that you're not stroking your penis. You're stroking a sleeping viper.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir What you think is deterrance ????

Sanity to realize the insanity.

The US and other big powers developed ther Nukes and thn spread these to weak countries no matter whatever the mod of spread.

I have to go with the Brigadier on this one, will you do better English?!?!? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "spread these to weak countries no matter whatever the mod of spread."

The only nuclear weapons know how transfer that I know of are the US-Canada, China-Pakistan, and Pakistan-world. There were low level knowledge transfers between the US and the UK and France but nothing on the scale of the above three.

Now the US is developing Anti this and Anti that weapons so if u think its deterrance thn how can countries like that get these new developments i dont think so the US will allow that.

Jana, my 5 year old can do better English than this. Are you saying the world wants the US's anti-ballastic missile technology for their own defence?

Know what, I just re-read your sentence. I have no clue what you're trying tos say.

Does it mean they should not go for nukes ??

That's their decision but it should be heavily considered decision.

So What you think is deterrance???

The thought of my daughter being burned alive.

 

[sigatoka]

1. We were ready to take the rest of the world with us. About the only place that was relatively safe was central mid and Southern Africa and that's only because they're already in the Stone Age. No scenario that I am aware of that did not drag every major country into that fight.

2. You don't get it. We know the insanity of nukes ... or at least we used to.

3. Oh get off it, the N5 can wipe you off the face of the earth without blinking an eye and all you guys can do is to drop a bomb on your own cities that the enemy might have captured. You don't have power. You have bragging rights.

4. I couldn't give a rats *** about the Muslim world. You guys all think nukes are a substitute for your penis. They ain't. You want nukes? Fine. Only just realize that you're not stroking your penis. You're stroking a sleeping viper.

1. South Africa has a robust economy and Nigeria and Sudan's economy are growing reasonably.

2. Pak. could acquire a 100 B-52 (and bankrupt itself) to give the same capability as 30 F-16's with 40 nuclear weapons. It is not nuclear weapons that is insane, it is fighting without the best mix of weapons within an available defense budget which is.

3. The N5 members could indeed destroy Pak., but Pak. having nuclear weapons makes it more difficult not less as you suggest.

4. Nuclear weapons can increase influence and does increase the freedom with which one can manuever compared to when the nation doesnt have it.

p.s. how many divisions can a penis destroy? 40 nuclear weapons can destory at the very least 4 divisions. The problem is that you are looking at it from a U.S./Western/Canadian perspective. Pak. cant afford the 100 B-52's required to destroy 4 divisions but the U.S./West can and therefore they dont want poor nations like India/Pak./Iran from "cheating" and acquiring that capability at such a low cost that nuclear weapons provide.

 

[sigatoka]

1. The thought of my daughter being burned alive.

I dont understand this point, are you saying nuclear weapons are effective deterrent becasue of "The thought of my daughter being burned alive"?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

1. South Africa has a robust economy and Nigeria and Sudan's economy are growing reasonably.

Most of those countries are still in the Stone Age.

2. Pak. could acquire a 100 B-52 (and bankrupt itself) to give the same capability as 30 F-16's with 40 nuclear weapons. It is not nuclear weapons that is insane, it is fighting without the best mix of weapons within an available defense budget which is.

Horse Puckey! 100 B-52s even in conventional mode gives me alot more capability than 30 F-16s with 40 nukes. A single B-52 carry enough ordnance for six sorties ... and that's before returning home to re-arm. If you can count, that's 600 targets destroyed versus 40.

3. The N5 members could indeed destroy Pak., but Pak. having nuclear weapons makes it more difficult not less as you suggest.

What's Pakistan going to do? Throw nukes at itself? The N5 can deliver nukes across the globe. Pakistan can toss in its own backyard.

4. Nuclear weapons can increase influence and does increase the freedom with which one can manuever compared to when the nation doesnt have it.

Oh, you mean like Afghanistan and Vietnam? How about the former Warsaw Pact who are now NATO? Taiwan? North Korea? Japan? Canada? Australia? Canada has more say in Yugoslavia than China even after the Belgrade Embassy Bombing. And Canada right now is deterining domestic Afghan policy while nuclear Russia is staying out.

You need to do alot more study.

p.s. how many divisions can a penis destroy?

In the case of Bush and Putin? All of them.

40 nuclear weapons can destory at the very least 4 divisions.

Horse pucky again. If the armies are prepared (and never assume that they're not), than a division can even survive multiple strikes. That's because for you to kill a division, you have to find it and it ain't as easy as you think. The best way if for your division to crash into their theirs and fix them in which case, your nuke would likely to do as much damage to you as them.

The Czech front alone during the Cold War was expected to toss 163 nukes in the openning phases of WWIII and even then, they think they still required 3 whole army groups to flank the remains of V Corps.

You know very little about the nature of nuclear warfighting.

The problem is that you are looking at it from a U.S./Western/Canadian perspective. Pak. cant afford the 100 B-52's required to destroy 4 divisions but the U.S./West can and therefore they dont want poor nations like India/Pak./Iran from "cheating" and acquiring that capability at such a low cost that nuclear weapons provide.

I'm looking at it from a warfighting perspective and you're damned wrong that nukes are cheap ways to cheat. If anything, they add to your costs without adding to your abilities.