What's new

Pak successfully fires two missiles

Pakistan test-fires 2 ballistic missiles

Islamabad, Saturday, May 08, 2010: Pakistan successfully test-fired two ballistic missiles Saturday capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the military said.

The Shaheen-1 missile has a range of about 400 miles (650 kilometers), while the second Ghaznavi missile could hit targets at a distance of 180 miles (290 kilometers), an army statement said. Both can carry conventional and nuclear warheads.

Pakistan's missiles are mostly intended for any confrontation with archrival India, and the range of the Shaheen-1 would include the Indian capital of New Delhi. Saturday's tests are unlikely to aggravate tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors, since they both routinely conduct missile tests.

The latest Pakistani missile test came more than a week after the leaders of two sides met in Bhutan on the sidelines of a regional conference, hoping to improve relations that have been strained since the deadly 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and other senior army and civil officials witnessed the launches on Saturday, which "successfully hit the target areas," the statement said.

Pakistan became a declared nuclear power in 1998 by conducting nuclear tests in response to those carried out by India. Islamabad test-fired its first missile that same year.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947, two over control of the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Pakistan test-fires 2 ballistic missiles - Yahoo! News
 
I understand that they are standing at the perimeter for security but this is really not a place one would like to stand. Like five seconds after this picture, these guys would have been covered in dust.


 
hmm well these days there is again alot of hue cry about a possible Indian surgical strike. I believe Pakistan knows it will eventually have a shown down with India, the reason why such large scale military exercises have been initiated by both countries. Rest assured my question was purely based on seeking technical information about using ballistic missiles to take out enemy installations and nothing more.

There is a Huge cry Among the Media, But Not among the Army or any other Forces, I would Like to say Something Young Boy,The Tensions are Just escalating day by day Between the Two countries, But a Scenario to Use these war heads will Never Arise, This would Lead to a total destruction, These weapons are the Last part of Defense, where every thing fails, When The nation has nothing else to do, But the front Line is always - Talks, Skirmish and an Open conventional War.... But Ballistic Missiles will Only be used If a Nation is helpless, But If that nation Uses it, then The Nation which uses it ,will not survive, all the Nations are tied By certain International Laws, We can only terrorize the Enemy, but can never Use it First against Them.
 
But what about the southern air bases where India hoses much of its MKI jets?
I am confused whether its southern or eastern but IMO a longer range ballistic missile such as ghauri 2 or shaheen 2 will be used to take them out.
Also in a war type situation what are the chances of launching an actual ballistic missile to take out enemy bases? The reason behind my question is that India might take a conventional missile launch as a strategic nuclear launch by mistake and we end up having a nuclear exchange.

Yes another thought is that whenever we see a war in which missiles are launched, those will be Nuclear Missiles because no side affords to let other have a chance to strike back. No side would also want to offend its enemy with ballistic missiles first and await nuclear counter response which is highly likely. Pakistan is small country as compared to India and we are less likely to wait and let India damage our striking capability by striking us first. So what I see is we would attack India first and with Nuclear Weapons but only when we are 99.9% sure attack on Pakistan is inevitable in next few hours time. We can afford a counter response from a limp enemy instead of responding after getting limp.
 
Yes another thought is that whenever we see a war in which missiles are launched, those will be Nuclear Missiles because no side affords to let other have a chance to strike back. No side would also want to offend its enemy with ballistic missiles first and await nuclear counter response which is highly likely. Pakistan is small country as compared to India and we are less likely to wait and let India damage our striking capability by striking us first. So what I see is we would attack India first and with Nuclear Weapons but only when we are 99.9% sure attack on Pakistan is inevitable in next few hours time. We can afford a counter response from a limp enemy instead of responding after getting limp.

You can never take Your chances with a country which has second strike capability, through air ,water and Silo....
 
There is a Huge cry Among the Media, But Not among the Army or any other Forces, I would Like to say Something Young Boy,The Tensions are Just escalating day by day Between the Two countries, But a Scenario to Use these war heads will Never Arise, This would Lead to a total destruction, These weapons are the Last part of Defense, where every thing fails, When The nation has nothing else to do, But the front Line is always - Talks, Skirmish and an Open conventional War.... But Ballistic Missiles will Only be used If a Nation is helpless, But If that nation Uses it, then The Nation which uses it ,will not survive, all the Nations are tied By certain International Laws, We can only terrorize the Enemy, but can never Use it First against Them.


There is a difference in using a ballistic missile with a conventional war head and a nuclear war head. I did not mention using nuclear warhead to take out military installations rather with a conventional warhead.

On a side note i am not that young as you made me look in your post :lol:
 

I agree with your point.. but hey they are brave Pakistani soldiers they can stand any where :pakistan:
 
There is a difference in using a ballistic missile with a conventional war head and a nuclear war head. I did not mention using nuclear warhead to take out military installations rather with a conventional warhead.

On a side note i am not that young as you made me look in your post :lol:

Hahaha, iam sorry, Iam 60 yrs Old.... Iam sorry if You are older than me Pal , But I as a whole said Ballistic Missile is a last part of defense, may it be with conventional weapons or Nuke weapons....
 
You can never take Your chances with a country which has second strike capability, through air ,water and Silo....

Like he said nuclear strike is a last resort and by then it wont matter whether India has second or third strike capability.
 
There is a Huge cry Among the Media, But Not among the Army or any other Forces, I would Like to say Something Young Boy,The Tensions are Just escalating day by day Between the Two countries, But a Scenario to Use these war heads will Never Arise, This would Lead to a total destruction, These weapons are the Last part of Defense, where every thing fails, When The nation has nothing else to do, But the front Line is always - Talks, Skirmish and an Open conventional War.... But Ballistic Missiles will Only be used If a Nation is helpless, But If that nation Uses it, then The Nation which uses it ,will not survive, all the Nations are tied By certain International Laws, We can only terrorize the Enemy, but can never Use it First against Them.

There won't be winner of the war but surviver on each side who will be left fighting the battle of survival instead of battle of ideology. Even if Pakistan attacks India first, we are sure to receive a huge counter response and this holds true the other-way around. But I have a feeling Pakistan might not be able to respond as massively as it could have when it would strike first and if we strike first, it won't be conventional.
 
damn some one remember zardari we need test .great going PA .
 
Like he said nuclear strike is a last resort and by then it wont matter whether India has second or third strike capability.

Why wouldnt It?, we have signed No first Use policy, So All Our first and 2nd strike capability would be there With Us, Until an enemy Makes Us Use it....
 
Hahaha, iam sorry, Iam 60 yrs Old.... Iam sorry if You are older than me Pal , But I as a whole said Ballistic Missile is a last part of defense, may it be with conventional weapons or Nuke weapons....

lolzzz naaaa not that old lolzzz.
I suppose i read somewhere you mentioned you are a retired major....am i right? if so can you please elaborate if India too has a similar stance of using ballistic missiles although as an official stance India has no first use policy, but is the policy same w.r.t to conventional usage of ballistic missiles.
 
The soldiers can potentially die by standing so close (Dust is inhaled and screws the lungs).Well lets hope they were using some sort of maska.
 
There won't be winner of the war but surviver on each side who will be left fighting the battle of survival instead of battle of ideology. Even if Pakistan attacks India first, we are sure to receive a huge counter response and this holds true the other-way around. But I have a feeling Pakistan might not be able to respond as massively as it could have when it would strike first and if we strike first, it won't be conventional.

India Would not and cannot Use Nuke First, Because India has signed No First Use Policy, And That Means, No Matter what, Unless other wise provoked We cannot Use It, And Here Provoked means , If the Enemy uses it against Us..... But If the enemy Uses it first he Not Only will be brutally Retaliated but Also the International pressure will tie its hand To avoid further destruction and The foreign Policy will be Highly Risked.... Which means The One who Uses it first will not get any help from the world, It would be deserted....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom