Forrest Griffin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 462
- Reaction score
- 0
The world will never be free of nukes. If some rogue nation or terrorist group comes into posession of nukes and nobody else has them, they could hold the world hostage.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The world will never be free of nukes. If some rogue nation or terrorist group comes into posession of nukes and nobody else has them, they could hold the world hostage.
Hi
Well may be this is what these people know but Pakistan has a very hefty number of nukes, sorry can't provide any link as such information is not on internet but you can figure it out yourself by going through certain facts which are as follow
1.In 2003, the U.S. Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimated that Pakistan possessed between 35 and 95 nuclear warheads. that is of 2003
2.In late 2006, the Institute for Science and International Security released intelligence reports and imagery showing the construction of a new plutonium reactor at the Khushab nuclear site. The reactor is deemed to be large enough to produce enough plutonium to facilitate the creation of as many as "40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
so this is just an example of want normal people know, the actual numbers are not available to public however since one of my teachers worked with the concerned ministry so i was told that Pakistan has fairly a large number of Nukes, that was the main reason India did not attack after Mumbai Attacks
Having capacity to produce 40-50 weapons doesn't mean we would be producing this number every year. It is one heck of expensive weapon and even though we have capacity, it is not necessarily utilized up to its fullest. When a country has 100 weapons, it would only produce more when he knows 100 are not enough for the deterrence and in my opinion, 50 would have been enough. Remember what 2 nuclear weapons did with Japan. Just imagine what would 20 do to India and we have them 4.5 times more weapons than this number..
You guys thought why do Russia has more weapons than USA when USA is richer and has more resources to produce more? There is a simple reason which also holds true for the Pakistan/India scenario. The country who feels more insecure will have more such weapons. I am not surprised neither I would be if Pakistan would possess 2 times more weapons than India does. We are small country and we have bigger threat to face and defeat, so we need to have more of those weapons even when India is not having them in large numbers.
[BThe country who feels more insecure will have more such weapons. I am not surprised neither I would be if Pakistan would possess 2 times more weapons than India does. We are small country and we have bigger threat to face and defeat, so we need to have more of those weapons even when India is not having them in large numbers.
Do you realise that these are all code words in Zionist media for Muslims. True victory is not to defeat your enemy but to make him think like yourself.
Exactly. As Pakistan continues to fall behind in conventional weapons more it relies on its nuclear arsenal.
If major cities get destroyed, radio active spread on hundreds of miles of area, then what would be left for the country to grow on again ??
Each country would go to stone age.
It will take decades after cities will be able to be populated again and other stuff. So what else are you gonna call it. MAD doesn't means each village or home is to be destroyed, major cities gone, industrial hubs gone, agricultural lands left un-cultivatable, what left to be done for MAD.
If major cities get destroyed, radio active spread on hundreds of miles of area, then what would be left for the country to grow on again ??
Each country would go to stone age.
It will take decades after cities will be able to be populated again and other stuff. So what else are you gonna call it. MAD doesn't means each village or home is to be destroyed, major cities gone, industrial hubs gone, agricultural lands left un-cultivatable, what left to be done for MAD.
There wont be any international pressure after the 1st slavo..Also, initially the targets will be military installations or strategic points....
^^^^^^^^^^
I agree...I don't think you need 1000 nukes to take care of India...Honestly i don't see any proud statement in saying that India has more nukes that pak or vice versa...All i know is that both have enough to ensure the opposite side know that there will be enough damage should it dare to do the unthinkable..
I don't agree...You don't need more numbers just because you are insecure...You need more numbers if you think that your adversary first strike can cripple you in such a way that you would loose all these weapons in one go...Thus if unthinkable occurs you should still be left with enough to ensure damage to adversary is beyond repair......In other words if you have a TRIAD(land, underground, nuclear submarine) then why would you like to put money on weapons which are supposed to used only when your adversary is on suicide mission??? Creating a nuclear bomb and then mainting it involves lot of money...I would rather spend that amount on improving my conventional weapons rather than getting a feel good factor of having more nukes than my adversary....
In short there is no point in nuking a city that has already been nuked....
Negative....You cannot rely on nuclear weapons alone because they cannot be used under ordinary circumstance(and you know why..don't you)...
We learned this the hardway when your army occupied our peaks in Kargil....Both India and Pakistan were nuclear nations at that time....In other words if India chose to have a limited conflict with you where she ensures that your nuclear threshold i not reached how would you counter that attack if you don't have parity in conventional weapons??? Unfortunate but truth there is no other end to Arm's race but peace....
on other hand for smaller economy like Pakistan it is a double edge sword...Not only they need to keep investing in nukes but also they need to have a minimum deterance as far as conventional weapons goes.....Just look at the inventory of IAF and the expected inventory by 2015-2020....You got to invest lot of money irrespective of the fact that you have 100, 500 or 1000 nukes...