What's new

Pakistan has 90 Nuclear Warheads (2009) according to UK media

who has how many Nuclear weapons whether operational or dismanteled or installed will never be disclosed.
Its something kept most secret and disclosed.

one can only estimate hardly on the basis of the frequency of the enrichment of the weapon based uranium and the fissile material stock pile and mass used in the weapon for minimum(for thermonuclear bomb) or maximum capability to use.
 
.
The disarmament treaty currently being negotiated between the US and Russia applies to deployed strategic warheads, along with their delivery systems, but that leaves out most of the weapons both countries are sitting on.


Nuclear weapons: how many are there in 2009 and who has them?


Russia...................... 12,987
US............................ 9,552
France......................... 300
Israel............................ 200
UK............................... 192
China........................... 400
Pakistan.............. 90
India............................. 75
North Korea...................... 2


Feel the Nuclear Power: Pakistan's capabilities! :)

:pakistan:

Israel is not in the list. So, the list is incomplete. North Korea is believed to be in possession of at least ten nukes.
 
.
if the information is correct israel has more nukes that pak-india combined!

You're right but strangely Israel is not in the list, perhaps because it has not yet officially admitted that it possesses nukes though everyone knows that it does. Of all these states, Israel has the greatest possibility of using nukes, it is also a grand sponsor of state terrorism. Considering this, Israel can be seen as the most dangerous state in the world
 
. .
well i think india have more nukes coz if india cant ignore the f-16 given to pak,how can india digest to have less nukes than pak?reason is india don't show more
 
.
well i think india have more nukes coz if india cant ignore the f-16 given to pak,how can india digest to have less nukes than pak?reason is india don't show more

Indians underplay their nuclear capability while Pakistanis overplay it.
 
Last edited:
.
Indians underplay their nuclear capability while Pakistanis overplay it.

No need to worry 2 nuclear detonation , and the nuclear fall out will get carried in both countries due to moon soon weather pattern and both nations can forget their agricultural heritage and source of food and life ... its simple nuclear fall out seas no difference and weather air streams carry radiated clouds and fall out to alot of territories

1 nuclear detonation in himalays and radiated water will flood the whole river system that irrigates both india and pakistan - and people can forget taking dips in rivers

As the water will flow over lands it will radiate the soil around it permenently scaring the land for good 2000-20,000 year
 
.
No need to worry 2 nuclear detonation , and the nuclear fall out will get carried in both countries due to moon soon weather pattern and both nations can forget their agricultural heritage and source of food and life ... its simple nuclear fall out seas no difference and weather air streams carry radiated clouds and fall out to alot of territories

1 nuclear detonation in himalays and radiated water will flood the whole river system that irrigates both india and pakistan - and people can forget taking dips in rivers

As the water will flow over lands it will radiate the soil around it permenently scaring the land for good 2000-20,000 year

and we dont need a nuclear bomb to destroy Pakistan, it can be done conventionaly. :yahoo:
 
.
I think nuclear , weapons are a grave danger to our countries and I think we need to just mature up and realize that look what is the point of having 100+ weapons we know no one will attack the other side , so why waste more and more on weapons ...

When we got slums on both side of borders and serious social economic issues that is all

I think we should just keep 100-200 Nucs each and start to reduce our forces to conventional levels

I mean look at Europe no one has airforce greater then 40-50 planes of high quality... and they got electricity , solid city infrastructure, no problem ...

Its .. very simple days of old are gone we need to look ahead ...

Fine have some detterance but lets not over do things
 
.
because there is little substance to prove otherwise, its nothing more than a stick measuring contest. .

Did you miss the discussion buddy??? Atleast the one i was part of is as to why Pakistan needs more weapons than India....Do you think it is not worth a discussion....it is not like i have few more so i am the winner - if that is what you mean by...

As far as nuclear deterrance is concerned both countries have it and nukes are probably the best thing that could have happened to this region.

I hope what you are saying is correct....As the moment nukes came into picture there comes the Kargil.....Fight on a small theater which could have resulted in a nuclear exchange.......

They are a detterent that have stopped both sides from going to full scale wars a number of times.

Yeah you are right...However nukes also give you a sense of security that conflict will not go out of hand and you try to take some bold but wrong steps and can lead to castrotophe....

The silly arguments that you guys have over who will survive a nuke attack or what not are nothing but child talk.

Watch your words buddy....I always try to follow a thumb rule ..DONT GENERALIZE.....treat the post on its merit....
 
.
And thats exactly where I differ.. India or Pak do not have enough Nukes to raze each other to ground. Which means, the hope of crippling the retaliatory strike is not a possibility.. Thats why, the one initiating this strike will also have to plan an out.. And if civilian areas are targeted, that out can not exisit.

Ok good to know that we are on same page as far as Disagreement goes.....Plan an out after using a nuke???? You must be kidding buddy....Anyways i asked you a few questions last time...let me repeat them so that i can understand why you think there can be an OUT after nuking some so called military installation...Lets have a hypothetical scenario - Pakistan has launched a nuclear missile on some Indian military installation ...Now please answer few of these questions....

a) How would the striking nation know that there won't be a full-fledge retaliation by the adversary??? Remember as per the Indian Nuclear Doctorine they have crossed our nuclear threshold and as per the doctorine our response is going to be devastating....

As you know there is no defence against nukes so what would Pakistan do if India chose to retaliate a full-fledge nuclear attack on Pakistan which mind it we have every right to do???

b) How would India know that if they would respond back by nuking some military installation of Pakistan there will not be any more nuclear attack from Pakistan side on our military or civilian installations????

c) Nukes used in second world war were from 12-15 KT(Hiroshima), 20-22 KT(Nagasaki)....You very well know the kind of devastation they caused...May i know what kind of nuke will impact only military establishment leaving aside civilians????

d) If at all it comes to nuclear backlash then the attacker would always have a upper hand even if we have same number of bombs because they would have taken over quite a chunk in their full fledge nuke attack...

e) Last but not the least how do India/Pak know how many nukes each party have that we are sure they cannot cripple our second strike??? At best all are/were specualtions...few years back Pakistan was pegged below India and not it seems they already have 20-25 more bombs than us...


See buddy there are lot of loopholes in your theory(atleast from where i see)...Just look at some claims on precieved surgical strikes by India and here you are saying that we will ignore a nuclear attack and bargain it for no Nukes for Pakistan with international community???? B/w Military establishment under nuclear attack is not grave???? I think it is as big a thing as nuking a city.....
 
Last edited:
.
Indians underplay their nuclear capability while Pakistanis overplay it.

I second on that.. We Indians always show and anounce failures of Missiles and other technologies unlike Pakistan/China to get more money for R&D of new technologies While we hide Nuclear warheads so international pressure remains less on us..

While Pakistan flaunt of their N warheads and that makes them irresponsible in front of international media.. while we wonder whether Pakistan ever failed in any of the missiles or it was 100% success?
 
.
I second on that.. We Indians always show and anounce failures of Missiles and other technologies unlike Pakistan/China to get more money for R&D of new technologies While we hide Nuclear warheads so international pressure remains less on us..

While Pakistan flaunt of their N warheads and that makes them irresponsible in front of international media.. while we wonder whether Pakistan ever failed in any of the missiles or it was 100% success?

its just that we are pakistani
and even more we are muslims
 
. .
Now the Indians have started to call Pakistan's nuclear bomb as ''Islamic bomb''. They are using every trick to deny Pakistan nuclear deal. The good thing thing is that end of the day the after all the arguments the only possible scenario is that Pakistan will be offered the civilian nuclear deal.

Sri Lanka Guardian: How to counter the Islamic bomb-makers & the Islamic bomb-seekers?

How to counter the Islamic bomb-makers & the Islamic bomb-seekers?
By B.Raman

(April 13, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) How to counter the Islamic bomb-makers and the Islamic bomb-seekers?

That is the question that should have been addressed by the Nuclear Security Summit convened by President Barack Obama and being held in Washington DC on April 12 and 13, 2010.Our Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh, Yousef Raza Gilani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and President Hu Jintao of China are among the 37 Heads of State or Government attending the summit. Ten other countries are also attending, but not at the Head of State or Government level.

Under his policy of making overtures to the Islamic world, Obama has refrained from posing the main issue in all its stark reality. The stark reality is that a catastrophic threat to the lives and property of the non-Muslims of the world as well as large sections of the Muslims themselves comes from two pernicious ideas born in the mosques and madrasas of Pakistan and disseminated across the Ummah by Islamic fundamentalist elements.

The first pernicious idea is that of the Islamic bomb, which was first propounded by the late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto. He was not a fundamentalist himself, but found it necessary to project Pakistan's quest for nuclear weapon capability as meant to protect the Islamic States from the nuclear capability of non-Islamic States---particularly India and Israel. He did not say that the States of India and Israel had an atomic bomb and hence the State of Pakistan should also have one to protect itself. He said that the Hindu and the Jewish religions had an atomic bomb and hence Islam should also have one.

He projected the image of an Islamic bomb in order to get funds for Pakistan's clandestine nuclear programme from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran. His idea of an Islamic bomb developed by Pakistan as a trustee and guardian of the Islamic world was readily borrowed by the Islamic parties of Pakistan, which project Pakistan's nuclear weapons and expertise as acquired on behalf of the entire Islamic world.

Many Pakistani nuclear scientists close to the Islamic parties subscribed to this idea of an Islamic bomb. A.Q.Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, was one of them. For him and the scientists associated with him, his selling the uranium enrichment technology and equipment and nuclear weapon designs obtained from China to Iran and Libya was not an act of proliferation. It was an act of Islamic solidarity. Even though the Pakistan Government, under US pressure, took some action against him for his acts of proliferation to Iran and Libya, many in Pakistan in the civil society as a whole as well as in the Government and the nuclear scientists’ community do not believe that A.Q.Khan did anything wrong by helping his co-religionists in other States acquire a nuclear weapon capability.

Bhutto and others who followed him in Pakistan saw the Islamic bomb as meant to protect Pakistan and other Islamic States and to deter attacks on them by non-Muslim States. Osama bin Laden borrowed the concept of the Islamic bomb from the Pakistanis and expanded it further to project it as meant to protect the religion of Islam from threats from other religions----particularly Christianity and Judaism. He spoke of the religious right and obligation of the Muslims to acquire a nuclear weapon capability and use it if necessary to protect Islam. This was the second pernicious idea born in Pakistani madrasas such as the Binori madrasa of Karachi which bin Laden made his own.

Thus, from the concept of a deterrence available to a state to deter attacks on it by other nuclear weapon states, the atomic bomb became, in the eyes of bin Laden, not only a deterrent, but also an offensive weapon of jihad to impose the will of Islam on non-Muslims---particularly the Christians and the Jewish people.

This enlarged concept of the atomic bomb as a jihadi non-State weapon and not a State weapon found its supporters in Pakistan's nuclear scientists' community, who were inclined to help Al Qaeda and bin Laden in their quest for this capability. Sultan Bashiruddin Ahmed and Abdul Majid, retired Pakistani nuclear scientists, constituted a new breed of lone wolf proliferators to jihadi non-State actors.

Ever since Al Qaeda embarked on its quest for nuclear material and weapons capability, the concept of the nuclear weapon as a deterrent has lost it meaning. It may deter other States, but it does not deter jihadi non-State actors such as Al Qaeda. A nuclear State may be able to deter another nuclear State through threats of massive retaliation, but such threats will have no meaning or impact in the case of jihadi non-State actors. Fears of large casualties and environment damage act as a restraining factor in the case of nuclear weapon States. No such restraining factor will operate in the case of jihadi non-State actors. They are indifferent to the likely catastrophic consequences of their acts of nuclear terrorism. They will use an actual act of nuclear terrorism or the threat of an act of nuclear terrorism as a weapon of intimidation against non-Muslims. How to deal with this?

The only effective way of preventing Al Qaeda from acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb capability is by neutralising it beyond recovery and, till it is destroyed, by preventing it from acquiring the capability. Pakistan is the only State where it can acquire the material and the capability. It has a reservoir of support and sympathy in Pakistan. Otherwise, bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, his No.2, might have been killed or captured by now. The pre-9/11 contacts of Sultan Bashiruddin Ahmed and Abdul Majid with bin Laden were an indication of the attraction of Al Qaeda and bin Laden to some members of the Pakistani nuclear scientists’ community.

Physical security of nuclear establishments in order to prevent nuclear material from getting into the hands of Al Qaeda and its associates is the first essential step for preventing nuclear terrorism. Another equally important step is the identification of pro-Al Qaeda elements in Pakistan’s military, intelligence and nuclear establishments and action to weed them out. Instead of discussing these measures in specific terms, the agenda of the Nuclear Summit seeks to evade a decision on the action that needs to be taken in and against Pakistan. This is not the way to ensure nuclear security.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
 
.
Back
Top Bottom