Pakistan says Indian ballistic missile system a destabilizing development.

[Dumbledore]

Pakistan says Indian ballistic missile system a destabilizing development.
Thursday, 09 May 2013 21:15

Pakistan has said it considers India's on-going efforts to build ballistic missile system as a destabilizing development. Addressing to a briefing in Islamabad on Thursday, Foreign Office spokesman Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said Pakistan has constantly drawn attention of the Indian Government to this issue through the composite dialogue process. He further said, “these are meant to address three major concerns emanating from India.These include increasing conventional weapons' asymmetry; India's offensive doctrine and development of ballistic missile system.” He said development of Nasr and Cruise missiles by Pakistan should be seen in this context. The spokesman made it clear that Pakistan's entire nuclear and missile programs are defensive in nature and we have no aggressive designs. Pakistan wants to have minimum credible deterrence.

Pakistan says Indian ballistic missile system a destabilizing development

 

[Skull and Bones]

One clarification, is it Ballistic Missile System or Ballistic Missile Defense System?

 

[The Deterrent]

Hardly destabilizing at all, Pakistan quickly realized the situation and counter-measures are being put in place already. In two years, India (DRDO) might be forced to reconsider its position and spending on Ballistic Missile Defense (except for 2-3 key locations).

One clarification, is it Ballistic Missile System or Ballistic Missile Defense System?

Defense of course, otherwise it would appear that the chap was hibernating for the past 15 years.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Hardly destabilizing at all, Pakistan quickly realized the situation and counter-measures are being put in place already. In two years, India (DRDO) might be forced to reconsider its position and spending on Ballistic Missile Defense (except for 2-3 key locations).

The Defense system will evolve too, then DRDO might consider moving from terminal interception to mid course interception, considering your counter measures will be multiple reentry vehicles.

 

[danger007]

Hardly destabilizing at all, Pakistan quickly realized the situation and counter-measures are being put in place already. In two years, India (DRDO) might be forced to reconsider its position and spending on Ballistic Missile Defense (except for 2-3 key locations).



Defense of course, otherwise it would appear that the chap was hibernating for the past 15 years.

what kinda counter measures? as per the article they are not talking about BMD systems.... how pakistan going to push DRDO? can i get the details..

 

[GR!FF!N]

tell me one thing..how can one's cruise missile can be a defensive weapon when one doesn't have "No First Use" policy in place???India already developed pakistan specific Ballistic missiles..now don't cry and demand that A-5 is for you too..

 

[Windjammer]

He said development of Nasr and Cruise missiles by Pakistan should be seen in this context.


Doesn't the above quote also signifies a point. !!

 

[The Deterrent]

The Defense system will evolve too, then DRDO might consider moving from terminal interception to mid course interception, considering your counter measures will be multiple reentry vehicles.

May be, but the costs of development and deployed would be too high at the Indian end, compared to what Pakistan is developing.

what kinda counter measures? as per the article they are not talking about BMD systems.... how pakistan going to push DRDO? can i get the details..

Okay this is really confusing. I think that he meant BMDs, because there hasn't been a radical addition (anti-Pakistan) to Indian Ballistic Missile Arsenal except Shaurya (and K-15 in near future).

They won't exactly push, but it would be just like how USA's National Missile Defense and SM-3s are not capable enough against Russian ICBMs. About the counter-measures, as I said, you'll get the complete picture in two years.

 

[Pulsar]

The spokesman made it clear that Pakistan's entire nuclear and missile programs are defensive in nature and we have no aggressive designs. Pakistan wants to have minimum credible deterrence.

That's a load of bull because if Pakistan's entire nuclear and missile programs are defensive in nature, then why have they refused to sign the 'No first use' agreement/treaty with India?

Out of all the countries that possess nuclear weapons currently, only two, China and India had explicitly stated “No First Use” as the guiding principle of their strategic nuclear doctrine.

An absolute and unconditional NFU commitment would have four following components:

Not to use nuclear weapons first against countries that possess nuclear weapons.
Not to threaten use nuclear weapons first against countries that possess nuclear weapons.
Not to use nuclear weapons first against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons.
Not to threaten to use nuclear weapons first against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons.

So is it India or Pakistan's ballistic missile systems that are a destabilizing development? And of course, as reported, Pakistan's nuke arsenal is the fastest growing in the world!! Isn't that destabilizing too?

 

[danger007]

May be, but the costs of development and deployed would be too high at the Indian end, compared to what Pakistan is developing.



Okay this is really confusing. I think that he meant BMDs, because there hasn't been a radical addition (anti-Pakistan) to Indian Ballistic Missile Arsenal except Shaurya (and K-15 in near future).

They won't exactly push, but it would be just like how USA's National Missile Defense and SM-3s are not capable enough against Russian ICBMs. About the counter-measures, as I said, you'll get the complete picture in two years.

will wait..... no problem... pakistan don't have ICBM nor we have that much distance.... as the article mentions offensive platform.. he is referring Ballistic missiles not BMD....

 

[The Deterrent]

will wait..... no problem... pakistan don't have ICBM nor we have that much distance.... as the article mentions offensive platform.. he is referring Ballistic missiles not BMD....

Well then I guess there is no use of issuing these kind of statements by foreign office.

 

[Skull and Bones]

May be, but the costs of development and deployed would be too high at the Indian end, compared to what Pakistan is developing.

Considering the technology will save a city having a economy exceeding $100 billion, and tens of millions of city dwellers. Isn't a technology worth pursuing?

 

[The Deterrent]

Considering the technology will save a city having a economy exceeding $100 billion, and tens of millions of city dwellers. Isn't a technology worth pursuing?

Though having such technology for stopping accidental/rogue/limited launches is no doubt worth pursuing, but hoping to prevent all-out attacks is a bit naive, specially when you know that the adversary, has and always will, find a way to counter that technology.

Instead of spending money on measures, counter-measures and counter-counter-measures, both countries should agree on guaranteed mutual destruction in case of a nuclear war, and spend it on mutual trade.

 

[!@#$%^&]

One clarification, is it Ballistic Missile System or Ballistic Missile Defense System?

I think this is Chinese retaliation of Indian announcement of developing AGNI 6.Since if it was BMD it would have been mentioned.

 

[danger007]

Though having such technology for stopping accidental/rogue/limited launches is no doubt worth pursuing, but hoping to prevent all-out attacks is a bit naive, specially when you know that the adversary, has and always will, find a way to counter that technology.

Instead of spending money on measures, counter-measures and counter-counter-measures, both countries should agree on guaranteed mutual destruction in case of a nuclear war, and spend it on mutual trade.

India do have MAD option for pak...