What's new

Pakistan’s nukes: How many are enough?

Veeru

BANNED
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
2,609
Reaction score
0
Pakistan’s nukes: How many are enough?

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

Published: February 5, 2011

khushab-site-nuclear-EPA1-640x480.jpg


It is well known that there are two operational un-safeguarded plutonium-producing reactors at Khushab (with a third one under construction). PHOTO: EPA/FILE

The latest news from America must have thrilled many: Pakistan probably has more nuclear weapons than India. A recent Washington Post article, quoting various nuclear experts, suggests that Pakistan is primed to “surge ahead in the production of nuclear-weapons material, putting it on a path to overtake Britain as the world’s fifth largest nuclear weapons power”.

Some may shrug off this report as alarmist anti-Pakistan propaganda, while others will question the accuracy of such claims. Indeed, given the highly secret nature of nuclear programmes everywhere, at best one can only make educated guesses on weapons and their materials. For Pakistan, it is well known that the Kahuta complex has been producing highly enriched uranium for a quarter century, and that there are two operational un-safeguarded plutonium-producing reactors at Khushab (with a third one under construction). Still, the exact amounts of bomb-grade material and weapons are closely held secrets.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the claims made are correct. Indeed, let us suppose that Pakistan surpasses India in numbers – say by 50 per cent or even 100 per cent. Will that really make Pakistan more secure? Make it more capable of facing current existential challenges?


The answer is, no.

Pakistan’s basic security problems lie within its borders: growing internal discord and militancy, a collapsing economy, and a belief among most citizens that the state cannot govern effectively. These are deep and serious problems that cannot be solved by more or better weapons. Therefore the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law.

Pakistanis have long imagined the Bomb as a panacea for all ills. It became axiomatic that, in addition to providing total security, the Bomb would give help us liberate Kashmir, give Pakistan international visibility, create national pride and elevate the country’s technological status. But these promises proved empty.


The Bomb did nothing to bring Kashmiri liberation closer. India’s grip on Kashmir is tighter today than it has been for a long time and is challenged only by the courageous uprising of Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s strategy for confronting India — secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella — backfired terribly after Kargil and nearly turned Pakistan into an international pariah. More importantly, today’s hydra-headed militancy owes to the Kashmiri and Afghan mujahideen who avenged their betrayal by Pakistan’s army and politicians by turning their guns against their former sponsors and trainers.

What became of the claim that pride in the bomb would miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute Pakistan?

While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away.


Karachi staggers along with multiple ethnically motivated killings; Muhajirs and Pakhtuns are locked in a deadly battle. As for the Baloch, they are in open revolt. They resent that the two nuclear test sites — now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at being governed from Islamabad, some have taken up arms and demand that army cantonments be dismantled. The Bomb was no glue.

Some might ask, didn’t the Bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? The answer is, no. First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 180 million Muslims.

Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If the mighty American python could not digest Iraq or Afghanistan, there is zero chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.

It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. India could do nothing after Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i-Muhammad), or the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba. So should we keep the Bomb to protect militant groups? Surely it is time to realise that conducting foreign policy in this manner will buy us nothing but disaster after disaster.

It was a lie that the Bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled situation and offers no way out. It is time for Pakistan to drop its illogical opposition to the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty which, incidentally, would impact India far more than Pakistan. We need fewer bombs on both sides, not more. :agree::agree:

The author teaches nuclear and particle physics in Islamabad and Lahore

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2011.

Pakistan?s nukes: How many are enough? – The Express Tribune
 
.
I was expecting this to be posted here when I saw this $hit on ET this morning!

We don't take this HoodBoy guy seriously here in Pakistan ;)
 
.
Some might ask, didn’t the Bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? The answer is, no. First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 180 million Muslims.

Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If the mighty American python could not digest Iraq or Afghanistan, there is zero chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.

Man, this author really speaks sense, we should have more of his articles on this forum.

But alas, some people will never understand the point that the author has made in bold above.
 
. .
Theoretically speaking how many nukes will be enough for Pakistan to destroy whole of India and VICE VERSA

Lets keep the Historic Fat Man yields as standard, which was about 21 kilotons of TNT.
1KT destroys how many square miles and total square miles of each country.

It can be a interesting calculation :D
any one interested :undecided:

P.S Dont get me wrong.. i am all for Peace !!!
 
Last edited:
.
A 1000 should be enough, 500 should be the minimum.

A nuclear attack on India would most likely be a massive one. Now don't take this as a desire of mine, but at that time it will play out like a necessity, to completely destroy India limiting their chances for a second strike.

Lets just say that many that effectively ensures a MAD scenario.
 
. .
A 1000 should be enough, 500 should be the minimum.

A nuclear attack on India would most likely be a massive one. Now don't take this as a desire of mine, but at that time it will play out like a necessity, to completely destroy India limiting their chances for a second strike.

Lets just say that many that effectively ensures a MAD scenario.

man u have no idea abt startegic affairs. india couldnt even attack pak wen it had just abt 20 (early 90s figure according to reports) for the fear of nuclear war and here u are talking abt 1000.

the figure is grossly over exaggerated. i expected most pakistanis to come up witha figure of around 250-300 but i was wrong. dont u think carrying a inventory of 1000 nuclear weapons is a herculian task. it includes cost of safe guards, storage bunkers, annual inspection and wat not.

think before u put down a number.
 
.
man u have no idea abt startegic affairs. india couldnt even attack pak wen it had just abt 20 (early 90s figure according to reports) for the fear of nuclear war and here u are talking abt 1000.

the figure is grossly over exaggerated. i expected most pakistanis to come up witha figure of around 250-300 but i was wrong. dont u think carrying a inventory of 1000 nuclear weapons is a herculian task. it includes cost of safe guards, storage bunkers, annual inspection and wat not.

think before u put down a number.
I'm thinking about targets... There will be failures, some backups would be needed, some reserves...

200-300 may be the legitimate targets to hit in India... It was a ball park figure anyway.
 
.
This came from a guy who....

Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy is a strong supporter for peaceful use of nuclear technology, non-nuclear proliferation, and nuclear disarmament, criticizing the United States, Israeli, Pakistan's and India's nuclear weapon program in many national and international forums.

He definitely talks sense but mix up a lot of things. Don't know where to start? The guy is making it sound like Punjabis are controlling everything and are preoccupied by their ambitions of nukes and other ethnicities don't want it. If they are Pakistanis then surely they share the same concern.

For Pakistan, India remains an external threat but that doesn't mean that we are not aware of internal threat.

@ Veeru
You didn't highlight this part.
and is challenged only by the courageous uprising of Kashmiris. (kidding only):D
 
.
Enough weapons to destroy our enemy for xx times and to protect our Nuke reactors being destroyed completely by the foreign aggressors.

We don't want Iraq incident to be repeated in Pakistan... so in case if one or two reactors are destroyed in sudden attack conducted by our adversaries. Our Nuke project should not be halted by this...

You can count the numbers by yourself

and yes I am not in favor of 100s of weapons... anything that can save us from the wrath of our enemies is more than enough for now
 
.
More nukes, More power...soon with an arsenal of 1000 nukes we will be able to solve all our problems from corruption to terrorism, poverty, minority rights, etc etc..yeah right! lets spends the money wisely as we are on the verge of default.
 
.
A 1000 should be enough, 500 should be the minimum.

A nuclear attack on India would most likely be a massive one. Now don't take this as a desire of mine, but at that time it will play out like a necessity, to completely destroy India limiting their chances for a second strike.

Lets just say that many that effectively ensures a MAD scenario.


Don't take it otherwise.

Are u a punjabi??? personally i know you are from Lahore but still asking as the article says that:

While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away.
 
.
Don't take it otherwise.

Are u a punjabi??? personally i know you are from Lahore but still asking as the article says that:

I am from Sindh and I say we should go for more stronger and credible nuclear deterrence. Go figure.

While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away.
 
.
More nukes, More power...soon with an arsenal of 1000 nukes we will be able to solve all our problems from corruption to terrorism, poverty, minority rights, etc etc..yeah right! lets spends the money wisely as we are on the verge of default.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

So u think that having a 1000 number of nuke will make u super power :woot:

And how u gonna tackle terrorism or corruption with nukes, plz elaborate.

Are u planning to nuke every terrorist and to drop a nuke on the head of every corrupt person. :rofl::rofl:
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom