I get all that, but nobody claimed the 5kt yield on technical grounds. My assumption is that it is of sub-kiloton yield, or at best 1kt. Anything greater is an overkill for its purpose.
I don't think that "squashing is necessary for fission-based MIRVs. Thermonuclear devices are another ball-game altogether, their staged arrangement facilitates a conical design.
Agreed about the rest.
sorry wrong quote. Reply was for
@Nilgiri
Well obviously Dr.samar worked on Pakistani nukes for 40 years,so his word is far more credible than yours or mine. Same for Musharraf, he personally supervised Pakistani nuclear weapons development, so his word too is far more credible than say an Indian bloggers or a CIA analyst.
Also Donald Trump recently said in an interview that "Pakistan has nuclear weapons that actually work".
So yes we will have to take their word for it.
About Chinese assistance, giving 80 Kg HEU. is one thing and giving diagrams of their own nuclear weapons is another. By giving exact diagrams of your country's nuclear weapon design to another country no matter how big an ally, you are giving out the exact specifications and with that the weakness of your nuclear deterrent to a foreign country and you don't know where this info will end up. China couldn't have taken that risk when Pakistan was working on their Nclear weapons design in the 80s and 90s as it was the height of cold war and China was facing a realistic threat of nuclear annihilation. Even the 80 kg HEY was only given after orders from the highest Chinese authority ,Chairman Mao Zedong himself.
So I am not buying the assumption that China just gave Pakistan the blueprints of their nuclear weapons . Some technical help maybe, but actual design, not possible.
About technical capabilities of Pakistan, not believing that Pakistan can do anything sophisticated as you are insisting, works very well for Pakistan as much of the work slips under the radar unnoticed as prying eyes are not looking because they didn't think Pakistan can actually do that.
Starting from nuclear tests of 1998, that was a shock to the world as America didn't know about the ongoing work and was surprised but they did know about Indian preparation for nuclear tests and issued a statement of concerns before Indian pokhran 2 test.
Then Shaheen missile test was a shock,a surprise, and world press was full of articles saying how could a country like Pakistan make a solid fuel mussile of such accuracy as shaheen was observed by satellites and seen to have less than 100m CEP on first test.
Then Babur cruise missile test was a shock horror and again world press was buzzing with similar articles of speculations about how possibly a country like Pakistan build a cruise missile.
So as many Americans say,Pakistan has the ability to surprise and has done so many times. Not wonder our tactical nukes too are a hard to digest fact for all who think Pakistan can do nothing.
About neutron bomb, its a scientific fact that anything below 10kt is effectively a neutron bomb because from a device of such small size and absence of layers of fissile material for absorbtion of high energy neutrons, the neutrons will escape and high energy neutron flux from small under 10 it devices us far higher compared to higher yield devices.
Now it's upon the designers to be able to convert as much energy of the blast as possible into neutron influx as possible. It can be 10% of the yield ad nrtrons or 60%. If it is difficult, does not mean it is impossible.
Plenty of satellite images show tunnels still being dug in the same area where cold tests we're conducted.
About tank armour nullifying neutron effects, the jury is still out and what you are quoting is opinion not hard fact. There are opinions and arguments with scientific proof for both sides . Some say tank armour will totally protect crew,others are not so convinced.
A 1kt neuton flux device is lethal upto 280 meters from blast,compared to just 50 meters in blast oriented device of same yield,so a country like Pakistan,tweaking their low yield nukes for more neutrins and less blast us not impossible,as there are benefits of doing so.
About labs and ability to cold test,well a scaled down device of 100 ton yield can be tested anytime as it wont show on siesmic graphs. So the assumption that Pakistan is only relying on labs for low yield weapon design which they won't have is wrong on many levels.
You can Google laser isotope separation work done by Pakistan and to the shock horror of many,such complicated tech had been mastered by Pakistan and plenty of articles available online in that s regards by sipri , FAS and such.
About non spherical elliptical design of warheads, yes calculations have to be done 3d instead if 2d, again do you really think Pakistan will do it and then shout from rooftops? Nuclear ambiguity is Pakistan s policy. And again your assumption that since it is difficult so cannot be done is wrong as difficult does not mean impossible.
As they say proof is in the pudding, and if Pakistan Is parading missiles specially designed for small tactical weapons and knows well that they are facing a drunk with power enemy who might start a nuclear Holocaust in reply to a sub kiloton blast, so chances are that these tactical nuked are worthy of deployment and worth their metal, not the useless junk you are trying to portray.