What's new

Pakistan Has Over 100 Nuclear Weapons Pointed At India (And Millions Live At Risk)

That's because you don't look into the larger picture exactly like the author of this article.

If Pakistan have your own security concerns which forced you to develop Nukes why don't you forget to see that we were also forced to acquire the tech due to similar threat. Doesn't it become imperative ?? :-)
Again, I am only talking in context to this article, I do not need your whataboutery. The article focuses on India and Pakistan, and my comment was aimed at that.
 
.
Guys, don't worry , India's arse is cracking day by day, there will be dozens of independent states soon and then can fight amongst themselves

Can we nuke the arse of this arsehole on twitter?
 
.
That's because you don't look into the larger picture exactly like the author of this article.

If Pakistan have your own security concerns which forced you to develop Nukes why don't you forget to see that we were also forced to acquire the tech due to similar threat. Doesn't it become imperative ?? :-)



Go and read through the following. It was according to the Indian Independence Act of 1947 passed in British parliament and agreed upon by the respective leaders of what is today's India , Pakistan and Bangladesh

Indian Independence act 1947.

And now please tell me who is blatantly lying here, me or you ?? :azn::azn::azn:
Where is the queen or UK gives/allowed Princey State head to dictate themselves to decide which country they wanna join and not ask for people or legislative Council to decide read it carefully
 
.
Pakistan Has Over 100 Nuclear Weapons Pointed At India (And Millions Live At Risk)

Let's hope they never use them.

by Kyle Mizokami

Key point: South Asia is one of the world's most dangerous nuclear-weapons zones.


Sandwiched between Iran, China, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan lives in a complicated neighborhood with a variety of security issues. One of the nine known states known to have nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and doctrine are continually evolving to match perceived threats. A nuclear power for decades, Pakistan is now attempting to construct a nuclear triad of its own, making its nuclear arsenal resilient and capable of devastating retaliatory strikes.
Pakistan’s nuclear program goes back to the 1950s, during the early days of its rivalry with India. President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously said in 1965, “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.”

The program became a higher priority after the country’s 1971 defeat at the hands of India, which caused East Pakistan to break away and become Bangladesh. Experts believe the humiliating loss of territory, much more than reports that India was pursuing nuclear weapons, accelerated the Pakistani nuclear program. India tested its first bomb, codenamed “Smiling Buddha,” in May 1974, putting the subcontinent on the road to nuclearization.
Pakistan began the process of accumulating the necessary fuel for nuclear weapons, enriched uranium and plutonium. The country was particularly helped by one A. Q. Khan, a metallurgist working in the West who returned to his home country in 1975 with centrifuge designs and business contacts necessary to begin the enrichment process. Pakistan’s program was assisted by European countries and a clandestine equipment-acquisition program designed to do an end run on nonproliferation efforts. Outside countries eventually dropped out as the true purpose of the program became clear, but the clandestine effort continued.

(This first appeared last March.)


Exactly when Pakistan had completed its first nuclear device is murky. Former president Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Bhutto’s daughter, claimed that her father told her the first device was ready by 1977. A member of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission said design of the bomb was completed in 1978 and the bomb was “cold tested”—stopping short of an actual explosion—in 1983.

Benazir Bhutto later claimed that Pakistan’s bombs were stored disassembled until 1998, when India tested six bombs in a span of three days. Nearly three weeks later, Pakistan conducted a similar rapid-fire testing schedule, setting off five bombs in a single day and a sixth bomb three days later. The first device, estimated at twenty-five to thirty kilotons, may have been a boosted uranium device. The second was estimated at twelve kilotons, and the next three as sub-kiloton devices.

The sixth and final device appears to have also been a twelve-kiloton bomb that was detonated at a different testing range; a U.S. Air Force “Constant Phoenix” nuclear-detection aircraft reportedly detected plutonium afterward. Since Pakistan had been working on a uranium bomb and North Korea—which shared or purchased research with Pakistan through the A. Q. Khan network—had been working on a uranium bomb, some outside observers concluded the sixth test was actually a North Korean test, detonated elsewhere to conceal North Korea’s involvement although. There is no consensus on this conclusion.

Experts believe Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is steadily growing. In 1998, the stockpile was estimated at five to twenty-five devices, depending on how much enriched uranium each bomb required. Today Pakistan is estimated to have an arsenal of 110 to 130 nuclear bombs. In 2015 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center estimated Pakistan’s bomb-making capability at twenty devices annually, which on top of the existing stockpile meant Pakistan could quickly become the third-largest nuclear power in the world. Other observers, however, believe Pakistan can only develop another forty to fifty warheads in the near future.

Pakistani nuclear weapons are under control of the military’s Strategic Plans Division, and are primarily stored in Punjab Province, far from the northwest frontier and the Taliban. Ten thousand Pakistani troops and intelligence personnel from the SPD guard the weapons. Pakistan claims that the weapons are only armed by the appropriate code at the last moment, preventing a “rogue nuke” scenario.

Pakistani nuclear doctrine appears to be to deter what it considers an economically, politically and militarily stronger India. The nuclear standoff is exacerbated by the traditional animosity between the two countries, the several wars the two countries have fought, and events such as the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, which were directed by Pakistan. Unlike neighboring India and China, Pakistan does not have a “no first use” doctrine, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons, particularly low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, to offset India’s advantage in conventional forces.

Pakistan currently has a nuclear “triad” of nuclear delivery systems based on land, in the air and at sea. Islamabad is believed to have modified American-built F-16A fighters and possibly French-made Mirage fighters to deliver nuclear bombs by 1995. Since the fighters would have to penetrate India’s air defense network to deliver their payloads against cities and other targets, Pakistani aircraft would likely be deliver tactical nuclear weapons against battlefield targets.

Land-based delivery systems are in the form of missiles, with many designs based on or influenced by Chinese and North Korean designs. The Hatf series of mobile missiles includes the solid-fueled Hatf-III (180 miles), solid-fueled Hatf-IV (466 miles) and liquid-fueled Hatf V, (766 miles). The CSIS Missile Threat Initiative believes that as of 2014, Hatf VI (1242 miles) is likely in service. Pakistan is also developing a Shaheen III intermediate-range missile capable of striking targets out to 1708 miles, in order to strike the Nicobar and Andaman Islands.

The sea component of Pakistan’s nuclear force consists of the Babur class of cruise missiles. The latest version, Babur-2, looks like most modern cruise missiles, with a bullet-like shape, a cluster of four tiny tail wings and two stubby main wings, all powered by a turbofan or turbojet engine. The cruise missile has a range of 434 miles. Instead of GPS guidance, which could be disabled regionally by the U.S. government, Babur-2 uses older Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching and Area Co-relation (DSMAC) navigation technology. Babur-2 is deployed on both land and at sea on ships, where they would be more difficult to neutralize. A submarine-launched version, Babur-3, was tested in January and would be the most survivable of all Pakistani nuclear delivery systems.
RTR1W9F3%20%281%29.jpg

Pakistan is clearly developing a robust nuclear capability that can not only deter but fight a nuclear war. It is also dealing with internal security issues that could threaten the integrity of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and India are clearly in the midst of a nuclear arms race that could, in relative terms, lead to absurdly high nuclear stockpiles reminiscent of the Cold War. It is clear that an arms-control agreement for the subcontinent is desperately needed.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009, he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters.
It sounds like Pakistan also has one stuck up his arse. That would explain all this bit$hing
 
.
Again, I am only talking in context to this article, I do not need your whataboutery. The article focuses on India and Pakistan, and my comment was aimed at that.

No it doesn't, the article only concentrates on Pakistan and your nuclear arsenal. It merely mention the name of India just like the author mentioned Iran, Afghanistan and China. The context is just limited to Pakistan and Pakistan alone, that's what I could understand reading this article.

Where is the queen or UK gives/allowed Princey State head to dictate themselves to decide which country they wanna join and not ask for people or legislative Council to decide read it carefully


I'm not here to nurse you my friend, do your own research. Please put some effort and care to read about "The June 3 Plan" the one agreed upon by all parties involved in the partition of British India and then come for a debate. I'm open to all healthy discussions. :)
 
.
US Literally Lost active Nukes in Various Accidents ..
Russia recently have Mysterious Blast in one of their testing site ..
India also have accident in Bhopal nuclear Reactor ..

When was the last time Pakistan suffer such mishaps ? Even After 27th Feb humiliation It was India who first threat Pakistan with Missile Attack, It was our PM who continuously emphasis on that this war will eventually turned Nuclear and devastate the Region .

I said it in other thread and saying that again, Japanese has no idea what is going on in this region, What are our geopolitical issues , etc they should stick to making Hentai and anime .. Its best they stop taking sides in conflicts, cause they literally have no say in these matters .
 
.
No it doesn't, the article only concentrates on Pakistan and your nuclear arsenal. It merely mention the name of India just like the author mentioned Iran, Afghanistan and China. The context is just limited to Pakistan and Pakistan alone, that's what I could understand reading this article.

Where as you are correct about the main focus being Pakistani nuclear arsenal, you are wrong about it merely mentioning India just like those other countries as part of a "complicated neighborhood". He explicitly mentions India on many occasions, and even talks about "perceived threats" which obviously in this case is India, goes on to talk about test being conducted by the two countries in response to each other, and that there is even a nuclear race between them. So no, it is not the same and the context is not limited to Pakistan. And I forgot to mention the headline of the article, which is all about Pakistan and India.
 
Last edited:
.
I'm not here to nurse you my friend, do your own research. Please put some effort and care to read about "The June 3 Plan" the one agreed upon by all parties involved in the partition of British India and then come for a debate. I'm open to all healthy discussions.
Nurse or you're not getting in your head queen gives all Princey state only option for plebiscite for all over British India do you get it or i could try to understand in your class language
 
.
Nurse or you're not getting in your head queen gives all Princey state only option for plebiscite for all over British India do you get it or i could try to understand in your class language

FYI, try and understand that it was not the queen rather the British Parliament had entrusted then Governor general of India Mr. Mountbatten with the job to partition British India which he delegated to Mr. Cyril Radcliffe for demarcating the resulting dominions. The crown or Queen had no role whatsoever in the whole process.

Moreover as per the June 3 Plan, the princely states had three options.

1) Go with India.
2) Go with Pakistan.
3) Remain independent. (Please read this loud and clear)

Why do you conveniently omit rather hide well documented historical facts, huh ??

If you can't read and comprehend, I hope you can hear and try to understand.


And please my friend I can't spoon-feed anymore with more history lessons. :-)
 
.
FYI, try and understand that it was not the queen rather the British Parliament had entrusted then Governor general of India Mr. Mountbatten with the job to partition British India which he delegated to Mr. Cyril Radcliffe for demarcating the resulting dominions. The crown or Queen had no role whatsoever in the whole process.

Moreover as per the June 3 Plan, the princely states had three options.

1) Go with India.
2) Go with Pakistan.
3) Remain independent. (Please read this loud and clear)

Why do you conveniently omit rather hide well documented historical facts, huh ??

If you can't read and comprehend, I hope you can hear and try to understand.


And please my friend I can't spoon-feed anymore with more history lessons. :-)
And only way to do this is to plebiscite referendum or thorough their legislative Council decision not state head decides on verdict single handedly, and dogra raj only ,if you watch this YouTube clip or read independence act of 47 carefully
 
.
Where is the queen or UK gives/allowed Princey State head to dictate themselves to decide which country they wanna join and not ask for people or legislative Council to decide read it carefully

In that case the father of your nation should have demanded plebiscite in the princely states. By not asking for it, he allowed the rajah to decide. The rajah was the final decision maker of each princely state.
 
.
And only way to do this is to plebiscite referendum or thorough their legislative Council decision not state head decides on verdict single handedly, and dogra raj only ,if you watch this YouTube clip or read independence act of 47 carefully

Is that what you understood after hearing this 9 mins audio clip as well as that lengthy 22 page document ?? Sorry then I can't make you understand better.

And FYI, none of the parties involved including your respected Quaid-E-Azam rejected the proposal. Everyone unanimously agreed that the princely states were to decide their future but never was it mentioned through plebiscite, was it ?? Now can you point me to a single piece if evidence support your claim ?? :)
 
.
Is that what you understood after hearing this 9 mins audio clip as well as that lengthy 22 page document ?? Sorry then I can't make you understand better.

And FYI, none of the parties involved including your respected Quaid-E-Azam rejected the proposal. Everyone unanimously agreed that the princely states were to decide their future but never was it mentioned through plebiscite, was it ?? Now can you point me to a single piece if evidence support your claim ?? :)
ok troll, you insist your crap that have no evidence by you links/clips, the only lame effeort to justify your illegal occupation of IOK, i read full your link and watch a whole video, where its say only princey states head dictate its peoples that we are going to join India without asking to its peoples

and what about UN resolutions on Kashmir and don't tell me these resolutions are for our part of Kashmir (AZAD KASHMIR), these resolutions are for whole Kashmir
 
.
ok troll, you insist your crap that have no evidence by you links/clips, the only lame effeort to justify your illegal occupation of IOK, i read full your link and watch a whole video, where its say only princey states head dictate its peoples that we are going to join India without asking to its peoples

and what about UN resolutions on Kashmir and don't tell me these resolutions are for our part of Kashmir (AZAD KASHMIR), these resolutions are for whole Kashmir

Again there is a strong reason for the helplesness of UN/UNSC in implementing the resolutions on Kashmir. Do care to read that before trolling or come to a healthy discussion if you want.
 
.
Pakistan Has Over 100 Nuclear Weapons Pointed At India (And Millions Live At Risk)

Let's hope they never use them.

by Kyle Mizokami

Key point: South Asia is one of the world's most dangerous nuclear-weapons zones.


Sandwiched between Iran, China, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan lives in a complicated neighborhood with a variety of security issues. One of the nine known states known to have nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and doctrine are continually evolving to match perceived threats. A nuclear power for decades, Pakistan is now attempting to construct a nuclear triad of its own, making its nuclear arsenal resilient and capable of devastating retaliatory strikes.
Pakistan’s nuclear program goes back to the 1950s, during the early days of its rivalry with India. President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously said in 1965, “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.”

The program became a higher priority after the country’s 1971 defeat at the hands of India, which caused East Pakistan to break away and become Bangladesh. Experts believe the humiliating loss of territory, much more than reports that India was pursuing nuclear weapons, accelerated the Pakistani nuclear program. India tested its first bomb, codenamed “Smiling Buddha,” in May 1974, putting the subcontinent on the road to nuclearization.
Pakistan began the process of accumulating the necessary fuel for nuclear weapons, enriched uranium and plutonium. The country was particularly helped by one A. Q. Khan, a metallurgist working in the West who returned to his home country in 1975 with centrifuge designs and business contacts necessary to begin the enrichment process. Pakistan’s program was assisted by European countries and a clandestine equipment-acquisition program designed to do an end run on nonproliferation efforts. Outside countries eventually dropped out as the true purpose of the program became clear, but the clandestine effort continued.

(This first appeared last March.)


Exactly when Pakistan had completed its first nuclear device is murky. Former president Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Bhutto’s daughter, claimed that her father told her the first device was ready by 1977. A member of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission said design of the bomb was completed in 1978 and the bomb was “cold tested”—stopping short of an actual explosion—in 1983.

Benazir Bhutto later claimed that Pakistan’s bombs were stored disassembled until 1998, when India tested six bombs in a span of three days. Nearly three weeks later, Pakistan conducted a similar rapid-fire testing schedule, setting off five bombs in a single day and a sixth bomb three days later. The first device, estimated at twenty-five to thirty kilotons, may have been a boosted uranium device. The second was estimated at twelve kilotons, and the next three as sub-kiloton devices.

The sixth and final device appears to have also been a twelve-kiloton bomb that was detonated at a different testing range; a U.S. Air Force “Constant Phoenix” nuclear-detection aircraft reportedly detected plutonium afterward. Since Pakistan had been working on a uranium bomb and North Korea—which shared or purchased research with Pakistan through the A. Q. Khan network—had been working on a uranium bomb, some outside observers concluded the sixth test was actually a North Korean test, detonated elsewhere to conceal North Korea’s involvement although. There is no consensus on this conclusion.

Experts believe Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is steadily growing. In 1998, the stockpile was estimated at five to twenty-five devices, depending on how much enriched uranium each bomb required. Today Pakistan is estimated to have an arsenal of 110 to 130 nuclear bombs. In 2015 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center estimated Pakistan’s bomb-making capability at twenty devices annually, which on top of the existing stockpile meant Pakistan could quickly become the third-largest nuclear power in the world. Other observers, however, believe Pakistan can only develop another forty to fifty warheads in the near future.

Pakistani nuclear weapons are under control of the military’s Strategic Plans Division, and are primarily stored in Punjab Province, far from the northwest frontier and the Taliban. Ten thousand Pakistani troops and intelligence personnel from the SPD guard the weapons. Pakistan claims that the weapons are only armed by the appropriate code at the last moment, preventing a “rogue nuke” scenario.

Pakistani nuclear doctrine appears to be to deter what it considers an economically, politically and militarily stronger India. The nuclear standoff is exacerbated by the traditional animosity between the two countries, the several wars the two countries have fought, and events such as the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, which were directed by Pakistan. Unlike neighboring India and China, Pakistan does not have a “no first use” doctrine, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons, particularly low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, to offset India’s advantage in conventional forces.

Pakistan currently has a nuclear “triad” of nuclear delivery systems based on land, in the air and at sea. Islamabad is believed to have modified American-built F-16A fighters and possibly French-made Mirage fighters to deliver nuclear bombs by 1995. Since the fighters would have to penetrate India’s air defense network to deliver their payloads against cities and other targets, Pakistani aircraft would likely be deliver tactical nuclear weapons against battlefield targets.

Land-based delivery systems are in the form of missiles, with many designs based on or influenced by Chinese and North Korean designs. The Hatf series of mobile missiles includes the solid-fueled Hatf-III (180 miles), solid-fueled Hatf-IV (466 miles) and liquid-fueled Hatf V, (766 miles). The CSIS Missile Threat Initiative believes that as of 2014, Hatf VI (1242 miles) is likely in service. Pakistan is also developing a Shaheen III intermediate-range missile capable of striking targets out to 1708 miles, in order to strike the Nicobar and Andaman Islands.

The sea component of Pakistan’s nuclear force consists of the Babur class of cruise missiles. The latest version, Babur-2, looks like most modern cruise missiles, with a bullet-like shape, a cluster of four tiny tail wings and two stubby main wings, all powered by a turbofan or turbojet engine. The cruise missile has a range of 434 miles. Instead of GPS guidance, which could be disabled regionally by the U.S. government, Babur-2 uses older Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching and Area Co-relation (DSMAC) navigation technology. Babur-2 is deployed on both land and at sea on ships, where they would be more difficult to neutralize. A submarine-launched version, Babur-3, was tested in January and would be the most survivable of all Pakistani nuclear delivery systems.
RTR1W9F3%20%281%29.jpg

Pakistan is clearly developing a robust nuclear capability that can not only deter but fight a nuclear war. It is also dealing with internal security issues that could threaten the integrity of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and India are clearly in the midst of a nuclear arms race that could, in relative terms, lead to absurdly high nuclear stockpiles reminiscent of the Cold War. It is clear that an arms-control agreement for the subcontinent is desperately needed.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009, he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters.
Taliban? And security issues, looks like articles from. 2012
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom