What's new

Pakistan has 110 Nuclear weapons, edges ahead of India: USA Report

Thanks to Nuclear Weapons There will now never be another full scale war in South Asia.

Pakistans ambitions to take Kashmir by Force are now not possible.

India Ambitions to annexe Pakistan by Invasion are not possible

With regards to Pakistan never accepting India as a South Asian Regional power i think its more important What the World sees as South ASIA,S major power NOT PAKISTAN or INDIA THEMSELVES.

iN OTHER WORDS " If the world thinks that India is the regional Super power" who cares what the indians or pakistanis think.
 
.
Regards Pakistans 110 nuclear waheads I think it more important what type of War head and the delivery system in use.

Ie PAK may have 110 atomic war heads but low yeild and only missle or air launched systems.

India may only have 70 Warheads but with Thermo nuclear Warheads much bigger MORE importantly full triad ie

Missle
Air
Sub launched

Number of war heads is not important.
 
.
With regards to Pakistan never accepting India as a South Asian Regional power

The issue is not that Pakistan will not accept India as a 'South Asian Regional Power', but that Pakistan will not merely defer to India and allow Pakistan's interests in the region to be dictated by India, or play second fiddle to India in the region.

India is welcome to pursue its interests as it sees fit, as is Pakistan, and where interests clash the two sides will have to figure it out.

So the issue is better cast as 'India not accepting Pakistan as a regional power', and seeking to unilaterally forge ahead with its agenda and expecting Pakistan to meekly comply.
 
Last edited:
.
Regards Pakistans 110 nuclear waheads I think it more important what type of War head and the delivery system in use.

Ie PAK may have 110 atomic war heads but low yeild and only missle or air launched systems.

India may only have 70 Warheads but with Thermo nuclear Warheads much bigger MORE importantly full triad ie

Missle
Air
Sub launched

Number of war heads is not important.
India's nuclear test yields were not much larger than Pakistan's. Both tested at a few dozen kilotons. So merely claiming 'thermonuclear weapons' does not mean anything.

No doubt both countries have refined their warhead designs since then - the West in fact found blueprints for an advanced high yield miniaturized Pakistani design a couple of years ago during the course of the AQ Khan investigations. Pakistan is also expanding its weapons grade plutonium production through expansion of the Khushab complex and associated facilities, which will allow for lighter and more powerful warheads than the enriched Uranium warheads tested.

With respect to a triad - Pakistan has both land and air-launched nuclear warhead capable missiles, and while a sea based capability would help, it is not essential and can be compensated for through a larger nuclear arsenal, for reasons I have explained earlier. At the end of the day, with a hundred plus (perhaps several hundred) nukes, no country can be assured of destroying a significant percentage of the nuclear arsenal before a Pakistani launch, and that should act as a significant deterrent to war.
 
.
The news was just a pressure tactics.
It was made to sale.
 
.
Regards Pakistans 110 nuclear waheads I think it more important what type of War head and the delivery system in use.

Ie PAK may have 110 atomic war heads but low yeild and only missle or air launched systems.

India may only have 70 Warheads but with Thermo nuclear Warheads much bigger MORE importantly full triad ie

Missle
Air
Sub launched

Number of war heads is not important.

Even if the bombs today were the size of those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would still significantly affect the target.

Make that then times 110.
 
.
This is stupidity of the highest order. Are you actually claiming that the U.S. has, in the last 10 years, killed more people than they did in WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, combined?

Please give me what you are smoking. Reality can be harsh.

the American govt is even stealing the medical records of their veterans and denying them the medical benefits and pensions as well. anything could be expected from US govt...:hitwall:If u feel I'm wrong then ask anybody who is retired from the army and especially from the Vietnam veterans...
devilz alwayz works under cover...:woot::cheesy::lol:
 
Last edited:
.
we need at least 500 active deployed Nuclear weapons and 500 in reserves for our national security and peace in the world...:agree:
I guess US dont need so many Nuclear warheads on their ICBMs they should handover half of them to us to balance the power in the world for peace...:agree:
 
Last edited:
.
we need at least 500 active deployed Nuclear weapons and 500 in reserves for our national security and peace in the world...:agree:
I guess US dont need so many Nuclear warheads on their ICBMs they should handover half of them to us to balance the power in the world for peace...:agree:

first create a stable country..then think about more nuk's..
 
.
we need at least 500 active deployed Nuclear weapons and 500 in reserves for our national security and peace in the world...:agree:
I guess US dont need so many Nuclear warheads on their ICBMs they should handover half of them to us to balance the power in the world for peace...:agree:

If anything goes to terrorist than you would be first to suffer. Ex. If they used the nuclear to other country, you would be responsible and if they use against yourself, then you would suffer. I think 100+ nuclear bomb are also very high. Each nuclear bomb can kill around 20-40 lakh people.
 
.
first create a stable country..then think about more nuk's..

Control the moaists and then start lecturing others. Get them under control and feed the 440,000,000 million people under the poverty level in India.

Spent some of the India money on your people too.
 
. .
India's nuclear test yields were not much larger than Pakistan's. Both tested at a few dozen kilotons. So merely claiming 'thermonuclear weapons' does not mean anything.

No doubt both countries have refined their warhead designs since then - the West in fact found blueprints for an advanced high yield miniaturized Pakistani design a couple of years ago during the course of the AQ Khan investigations. Pakistan is also expanding its weapons grade plutonium production through expansion of the Khushab complex and associated facilities, which will allow for lighter and more powerful warheads than the enriched Uranium warheads tested.

With respect to a triad - Pakistan has both land and air-launched nuclear warhead capable missiles, and while a sea based capability would help, it is not essential and can be compensated for through a larger nuclear arsenal, for reasons I have explained earlier. At the end of the day, with a hundred plus (perhaps several hundred) nukes, no country can be assured of destroying a significant percentage of the nuclear arsenal before a Pakistani launch, and that should act as a significant deterrent to war.

India has 200 kilotone thermonuclear devices in its arsenal ..haven't heard the same about Pakistan.

None of devices tested by Pakistan at Chagai were thermonuclear...which India did in Pokran 2 .

Uptill now almost all Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has been Uranium based(but recently started making plutonium based arsenal)..whereas
Indian arsenal has been plutonium based from the beginning and as you said correctly..plutonium based devices are lighter and gives the missiles more range.

There is a reason why USA (during cold war) despite having huge land area had most of its weapons deployed at sea and upon restoration of DEFCON most of it air borne strategic nuclear bombers use to take to air..because they knew a preemptive nuclear strike by Soviet Union(even though USSR had a declared NFU policy) will take out its land based assets in Europe and Mainland USA.

Comparatively Pakistan is much smaller and much nearer to India(less reaction time)..so in case of preemptive nuclear strike, pakistan can not ensure most of its nuclear arsenal will survive..or even enough to destroy India.
 
.
Dear Mr. Ares, not that there will be much left of either country after a first strike, but Pakistan does have a second strike capability courtesy of President Musharraf. Take care.

/******************************************/
Pakistan enhances second strike capability to survive N-war: US report
By Our Correspondent
Saturday, 30 May, 2009
DAWN.com

WASHINGTON, May 29: Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability, says a US congressional report.

The first part of the report, published on Friday, deals with Islamabad’s efforts to develop new weapons, while the second part studies its strategy for surviving a nuclear war.

According to the report, Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.

It also has built road-mobile missiles, air defences around strategic sites, and concealment measures.

The report prepared by the Congressional Research Service recalls that as the United States prepared to launch an attack on the Afghan Taliban after September 11, 2001, former military dictator Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf ordered that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal be redeployed to “at least six secret new locations.” This action came at a time of uncertainly about the future of the region, including the direction of US-Pakistan relations. Islamabad’s leadership was uncertain whether the US would decide to conduct military strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear assets if Islamabad did not assist the United States against the Taliban. Indeed, Musharraf cited protection of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets as one of the reasons for Islamabad’s dramatic policy shift.

The CRS points out that these events, in combination with the 1999 Kargil crisis, the 2002 conflict with India at the Line of Control, and revelations about the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, inspired a variety of reforms to secure the nuclear complex. Risk of nuclear war in South Asia ran high in the 1999 Kargil crisis, when the Pakistani military is believed to have begun preparing nuclear-tipped missiles.

The report, however, notes that even at the high alert levels of 2001 and 2002, there were no reports of Pakistan mating the warheads with delivery systems.

The CRS refers to a Nov 5, 2007 statement by former prime minister Benazir Bhutto who said that while Musharraf claimed he had firm control of the nuclear arsenal, she was afraid this control could weaken due to instability in the country.

The report then quotes Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, Washington, as arguing that “a prolonged period of turbulence and infighting among the country’s president, prime minister, and army chief” could jeopardise the army’s unity of command, which “is essential for nuclear security”.

During that period between late 2007 and early 2008, US military officials also expressed concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei also said he feared that a radical regime could take power in Pakistan, and thereby acquire nuclear weapons.

Experts also worried that while nuclear weapons were currently under firm control, with warheads disassembled, technology could be sold off by insiders during a worsened crisis.

Since then, however, US intelligence officials have expressed greater confidence regarding the security of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons.

The Pakistani military’s control of the country’s nuclear weapons is “a good thing because that’s an institution in Pakistan that has, in fact, withstood many of the political changes over the years,” says Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

Washington has “no reason at this point to have any concern with regard to the security” of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal, argues a Pentagon spokesperson.
 
Last edited:
.
Dear Mr. Ares, not that there will be much left of either country after a first strike, but Pakistan does have a second strike capability courtesy of President Musshy. Take care.

/******************************************/
Pakistan enhances second strike capability to survive N-war: US report
By Our Correspondent
Saturday, 30 May, 2009
DAWN.com

WASHINGTON, May 29: Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability, says a US congressional report.

The first part of the report, published on Friday, deals with Islamabad’s efforts to develop new weapons, while the second part studies its strategy for surviving a nuclear war.

According to the report, Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.

It also has built road-mobile missiles, air defences around strategic sites, and concealment measures.

The report prepared by the Congressional Research Service recalls that as the United States prepared to launch an attack on the Afghan Taliban after September 11, 2001, former military dictator Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf ordered that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal be redeployed to “at least six secret new locations.” This action came at a time of uncertainly about the future of the region, including the direction of US-Pakistan relations. Islamabad’s leadership was uncertain whether the US would decide to conduct military strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear assets if Islamabad did not assist the United States against the Taliban. Indeed, Musharraf cited protection of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets as one of the reasons for Islamabad’s dramatic policy shift.

The CRS points out that these events, in combination with the 1999 Kargil crisis, the 2002 conflict with India at the Line of Control, and revelations about the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, inspired a variety of reforms to secure the nuclear complex. Risk of nuclear war in South Asia ran high in the 1999 Kargil crisis, when the Pakistani military is believed to have begun preparing nuclear-tipped missiles.

The report, however, notes that even at the high alert levels of 2001 and 2002, there were no reports of Pakistan mating the warheads with delivery systems.

The CRS refers to a Nov 5, 2007 statement by former prime minister Benazir Bhutto who said that while Musharraf claimed he had firm control of the nuclear arsenal, she was afraid this control could weaken due to instability in the country.

The report then quotes Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, Washington, as arguing that “a prolonged period of turbulence and infighting among the country’s president, prime minister, and army chief” could jeopardise the army’s unity of command, which “is essential for nuclear security”.

During that period between late 2007 and early 2008, US military officials also expressed concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei also said he feared that a radical regime could take power in Pakistan, and thereby acquire nuclear weapons.

Experts also worried that while nuclear weapons were currently under firm control, with warheads disassembled, technology could be sold off by insiders during a worsened crisis.

Since then, however, US intelligence officials have expressed greater confidence regarding the security of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons.

The Pakistani military’s control of the country’s nuclear weapons is “a good thing because that’s an institution in Pakistan that has, in fact, withstood many of the political changes over the years,” says Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

Washington has “no reason at this point to have any concern with regard to the security” of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal, argues a Pentagon spokesperson.

Yes road/rail mobile missiles do offer some flexibility but it is not same as sea based missiles because(or don't you think USA and USSR had road mobile ICBMS?).

What most of your have ignored is the fact explosion of nuclear devices is accompanied by EMP burst..which fries all the electronic in EMP blast radius(EMP blast radius by far exceeds nuclear explosion radius especially if the explosion is an air burst at high altitude)
" Starfish Prime
Main article: Starfish Prime
In July 1962, a 1.44 megaton (6.0 PJ) United States nuclear test in space, 400 kilometres (250 mi) above the mid-Pacific Ocean, called the Starfish Prime test, demonstrated to nuclear scientists that the magnitude and effects of a high altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated. Starfish Prime also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point.

EMP_areas.JPG

Hence a few high altitude air bursts can knock out most of your road based missiles placed in far away regions of Pakistan.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom