Pakistan Should Produce More Nuclear Weapons If No F16's

[MastanKhan]

Great point. It's not just the US and Europe that'd be concerned about this. China and Russia already have one North Korea to worry about, do they really want another? Or a nation helping to facilitate the creation of one?

Of course not. Even without actually using the devices, they are politically and economically disruptive for a nation that possesses them. Sanctions, UN actions, political isolation, the kinds of nations that'd buy nukes from a North Korea or Ex-Soviet state - when they still had them - or Pakistan are the kinds that China's making good with at the moment and Russia has strong historical ties with... well, apart from Poland's more extreme elements anyway, but as if the US would even entertain the suggestion of leasing its nukes in such a way. And if Pakistan seeks to sell such weapons it could undo Russia and Chinese support or influence over those nations or make supporting them politically and economically costly

And beyond the political and economic considerations, I'm not even able to convince myself that certain nations wouldn't use the devices either. Could we trust either Sudan? Or some of the more instable nations in North Africa and the Middle-East? Aren't these the nations Pakistan counts itself friends with?

I can't say. But it's an unacceptable risk. Not just for Europe or the US, but for China, Russia and the greater region too.



I do forgive them, and enjoy poking both sides from time-to-time because of the jingoism that sprouts up. It's an irrational suggestions, selling nukes. But even building them to threaten nations in Europe or North America is hardly without risks. As I wrote to Flamer, it carries political and economic implications. Despite the bravado, Pakistan can't rely on Chinese goodwill alone - Russia's trying that at the moment, since European and US sanctions following its adventurism into Ukraine and Syria. It's not working and China hasn't been able to pick up the slack that Russia lost from Europe.

Nations that have threatened the US with nuclear weapons are stuck in the mid-20th century. Cuba tried it; got embargoed. North Korea tried it; hardly a success story there either. It's not a viable solution.

And it's irrational. Of course Pakistanis are angry the US is requiring Pakistan to pay for its own aircraft without US money, but with Pakistanis suggesting Russian alternatives do we think Russia is going to allow Pakistan FMS money? Nope, they'll want to be paid too.

So how's the US' demand any different from what Russia would do? How would Russian alternatives, notoriously costly to support long-term, be less costly? This is just a case of people throwing a tantrum because their subsidies are being cut. Which you, being a business guy should know rarely goes over well with a population - Egypt and Venezuela can offer examples of unrest following subsidies cuts.

I forgive your compatriots, but also wish they'd take more time to think about these things before writing them. There are consequences that haven't been considered.



Same with the US, China and Russia. The others have them and we can't be left without them. France is somewhat of a holdover, and so is the UK. North Korea is pursuing a viable nuclear deterrent because of the three bigs too.

This is why unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream and total disarmament is unreasonable. So long as mistrust reigns in their relationships these types of weapons will persist as part of an enduring stockpile.

Sweden once had a nuclear weapons program. Poor little Norway would have had to get them too keep Sweden honest.

Though that would be through a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement instead.



Very tiring, but rewarding, We cater business lunches - I do bake things other then pastries, but I like them best - dinners and most often breakfasts. Unfortunetly, most of the large businesses aren't HQ'd in Sandefjord, and Oslo is 2 hours away.

If I'm driving, I have to leave really, really early to make it before breakfast starts, as I need time to deliver and help setup for the occurance.

I'm not the only employee I employ though, just the one that works most in the mornings. Being a manager sucks that way... being the owner is even worse.



Nah, just raw dough. Actually, I got in trouble for being off-topic a few days ago, so I'm being more careful until that blows over. I think the mods like me though. Or at least Waz does.



I actually had to look croquembouche up. I don't know if I could do it. Looks dangerous.

Danishes are something I do a lot, pies and cakes too. Donuts are another. I can't say anyone's ever ordered a croquembouche before, but maybe I'll look to expand into France?

Hi,

That was the deal that the U S made with pakistan---that with those funds---pakistan would be able to procure U S weapons.

We never asked anything for free that was not a part of the deal.

The consequences are going to terrible for all your LILLY white and Pink ar-ses of scandanivian countries if there is a nuc blow out between Pak and india---.

So---stop your bit-ching session---look a little beyond what you are seeing and find a way that this conflict stays conventional---and the best way to do that is arming pak with conventional weapons to keep parity.

 

[Spectre]

Hi,

That was the deal that the U S made with pakistan---that with those funds---pakistan would be able to procure U S weapons.

We never asked anything for free that was not a part of the deal.

The consequences are going to terrible for all your LILLY white and Pink ar-ses of scandanivian countries if there is a nuc blow out between Pak and india---.

So---stop your bit-ching session---look a little beyond what you are seeing and find a way that this conflict stays conventional---and the best way to do that is arming pak with conventional weapons to keep parity.

So - Give me F16s or I ll strap a bomb and blow up the whole world?

Is this what the argument has come down to? Well Done! No different from the garden variety terrorist.

 

[Freyja]

What are the criteria for any nation allowed to posses Nukes?

Whatever the big three let you get away with without repercussions. Israel is shielded by the US and to an extent Russia and China, with whom Israel has strong relations.

The US sold nuclear weapons technology to the UK in return for technical information on VX nerve gas. The US shielded them from Russian repercussions... though at this point in history there wasn't much Russia could do anyway.

Today's a different game. The big three nuclear powers hold a lot of international clout and use it when threatened. Iran threatened the US and its friends and Russia's been weary of Iran too - often because of its relations with other regional players. No one was going to shield them because it wasn't in the interest of the big three.

The whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy and double standards.

Practically everything does if we look deep enough at the connections and interests involved. But I'd say that's the point. The US, China and Russia don't want India as an equal and hardly want Pakistan spreading nuke around or getting out of control.

They introduce these impossible conditions and punishing consequences to protect their standing at the expense of others.

Some call it double standards, some call it hypocracy, I call it politics.

Then we talk about proliferation - It is a sensitive topic on PDF but what are the penalties? Let's not beat around the bush - Penalty is not existent. Pakistan with its record of proliferation and state sponsored at that according to many can get whatever it wants from China making the whole NSG thingy a big joke at humanity's expense.

Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, embargoes, there's a lot that can be done. Iran and North Korea, Cuba too were on the receiving end of such actions.

Pakistan isn't so special that it can't be either. China complicates things, but if Pakistan's actions complicate China's interests then that part of the big three will seek to protect its interests too; at the expense of Pakistan.

The penalites are dependent on who's effected and who's interests are threatened.

So goes global politics.

they can be your savious from complete isolations if west doesn't play ball.

I don't support this theory. They can take some pain away, but there are examples of nations supported by both that've done poorly when faced with European and US actions against them.

They can help. But they aren't angels.

 

[Armstrong]

I do forgive them, and enjoy poking both sides from time-to-time because of the jingoism that sprouts up. It's an irrational suggestions, selling nukes. But even building them to threaten nations in Europe or North America is hardly without risks. As I wrote to Flamer, it carries political and economic implications. Despite the bravado, Pakistan can't rely on Chinese goodwill alone - Russia's trying that at the moment, since European and US sanctions following its adventurism into Ukraine and Syria. It's not working and China hasn't been able to pick up the slack that Russia lost from Europe.

Nations that have threatened the US with nuclear weapons are stuck in the mid-20th century. Cuba tried it; got embargoed. North Korea tried it; hardly a success story there either. It's not a viable solution.

And it's irrational. Of course Pakistanis are angry the US is requiring Pakistan to pay for its own aircraft without US money, but with Pakistanis suggesting Russian alternatives do we think Russia is going to allow Pakistan FMS money? Nope, they'll want to be paid too.

So how's the US' demand any different from what Russia would do? This is just a case of people throwing a tantrum because their subsidies are being cut. Which you, being a business guy should know rarely goes over well with a population - Egypt and Venezuela can offer examples of unrest following subsidies cuts.

If forgive you compatriots, but also wish they'd take more time to think about these things before writing them. There are consequences that haven't been considered.

Oi the nukes aren't there to threaten the US or Europe they're there to ensure Pakistan's safety viz a vie India - a country we share an acrimonious past and present with and which was responsible for dismembering Pakistan (with Soviet tacit support) in '71.

Besides I get not threatening the US but what can you Europeans do ? Embargo me out of all the macarons and the croissants I can eat !

And yes that was a joke...don't go all serious on me again !

So far as paying for the jets are concerned; Pakistanis aren't so much angry about paying for them as they are about the way Indian lobbying ensured that we didn't get them as discounted rates.

I mean full marks to the Indians for influencing the right people in the US senate or congress to accomplish this but just because its a well played low blow doesn't mean that we have to automatically like it.

Same with the US, China and Russia. The others have them and we can't be left without them. France is somewhat of a holdover, and so is the UK. North Korea is perusing a viable nuclear deterrent because of the three bigs too.

This is why unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream and total disarmament is unreasonable. So long as mistrust reigns in their relationships these types of weapons will persist as part of an enduring stockpile.

To be honest if I were at the helm of affairs I'd favor unilateral disarmament on our part; I know thats probably not a very popular idea in Pakistan especially when we know full well that if we had the nukes in '71 we would not have been eviscerated like we were. But on my part I think that even if we did....could I ever sanction their use ? No....never....in my opinion the use of a nuke is worse than mass murder....its worse than the Holocaust. So if you can't use it...no matter what...then whats the point of having them ? I don't know...but I suppose if we have them...we might as well keep them.

Who knows we could use them in a barbecue grill in case the charcoal runs out ?

Very tiring, but rewarding, We cater business lunches - I do bake things other then pastries, but I like them best - dinners and most often breakfasts. Unfortunetly, most of the large businesses aren't HQ'd in Sandefjord, and Oslo is 2 hours away.

If I'm driving, I have to leave really, really early to make it before breakfast starts, as I need time to deliver and help setup for the occurance.

I'm not the only employee I employ though, just the one that works most in the mornings. Being a manager sucks that way... being the owner is even worse.

Stop whining, suck your pot belly in and get to work !

Or you can just hire me as your Official Food Tester and we can prepare culinary delights such that the world has never tasted before !

And yes I expect to be paid in Apple Pies !

Nah, just raw dough. Actually, I got in trouble for being off-topic a few days ago, so I'm being more careful until that blows over. I think the mods like me though. Or at least Waz does.

But on topic talk is so boring !

I actually had to look croquembouche up. I don't know if I could do it. Looks dangerous.

Danishes are something I do a lot, pies and cakes too. Donuts are another. I can't say anyone's ever ordered a croquembouche before, but maybe I'll look to expand into France?

You don't know what a croquemouche is ?

Someone didn't watch that episode of Master Chef Australia !

 

[Spectre]

Whatever the big three let you get away with without repercussions. Israel is shielded by the US and to an extent Russia and China, with whom Israel has strong relations.

The US sold nuclear weapons technology to the UK in return for technical information on VX nerve gas. The US shielded them from Russian repercussions... though at this point in history there wasn't much Russia could do anyway.

Today's a different game. The big three nuclear powers hold a lot of international clout and use it when threatened. Iran threatened the US and its friends and Russia's been weary of Iran too - often because of its relations with other regional players. No one was going to shield them because it wasn't in the interest of the big three.



Practically everything does if we look deep enough at the connections. But I'd say that's the point. The US, China and Russia don't want India as an equal and hardly want Pakistan spreading nuke around or getting out of control.

They introduce these impossible conditions and punishing consequences to protect their standing at the expense of others.

Some call it double standards, some call it hypocracy, I call it politics.

Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, embargoes, there's a lot that can be done. Iran and North Korea, Cuba too were on the receiving end of such actions.

Pakistan isn't so special that it can't be either. China complicates things, but if Pakistan's actions complicate China's interests then that part of the big three will seek to protect its interests too; at the expense of Pakistan.

The penalites are dependent on who's effected and who's interests are threatened.

So goes global politics.

I agree .. though the Big three sounds a bit tacky! You guys should have new name! I hear "The Three Stooges" is not being used anywhere

 

[Hyperion]

The difference being .... NPT..... CTBT...... FMCT..... etc......... Israel, Pakistan and India never could be coerced into signing or ratifying any one of them...... hence no leverage or moral high ground, as simple as that.

What are the criteria for any nation allowed to posses Nukes?

When China was "allowed" or atleast legitimised then what stops one for extending similar concessions to India, Vietnam, Philippines among other countries? It is another thing that India got that capability and had to bear the cost of sanctions.

Israel has nukes, US has nukes then why sanction Iran from getting the nukes the same way Pakistan did? Iran was sanctioned to ruins but not Pakistan - it got a breather after a short spell - because it suited American interests during WoT?

The whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy and double standards. There is no moral justification for anyone possessing nukes and then not allowing others to do the same.

Then we talk about proliferation - It is a sensitive topic on PDF but what are the penalties? Let's not beat around the bush - Penalty is not existent. Pakistan with its record of proliferation and state sponsored at that according to many can get whatever it wants from China making the whole NSG thingy a big joke at humanity's expense.

In the end all I would like to say, Nuclear policy of all of EU or US is just an extension of their Diplomatic and Defence Policy - It can be a carrot if you are an ally or a stick if you are not one. Same with Russia or China - they can be your savious from complete isolations if west doesn't play ball.

 

[Spectre]

The difference being .... NPT..... CTBT...... FMCT..... etc......... Israel, Pakistan and India never could be coerced into signing or ratifying any one of them...... hence no leverage or moral high ground, as simple as that.

My friend, coercion takes many forms. Neither India nor Pakistan has been completely honest of the oversight their nukes are under. I believe there is lot more happening behind the scenes and India has had to make significant concessions to get out of the nuclear apartheid, similar if not greater pressures have been exerted on Pakistan.

Off topic but I rather prefer Biological Weapons if been given a choice to select WMDs. Much less environmental damage if we chose to blow up the world. Atleast @Freyja would survive in the frigid Scandinavia

 

[Freyja]

Oi the nukes aren't there to threaten the US or Europe they're there to ensure Pakistan's safety viz a vie India - a country we share an acrimonious past and present with and which was responsible for dismembering Pakistan (with Soviet tacit support) in '71.

I know, but read the OP and its suggestion of building ICBMs. If you want to stave off India, then why do this?

Besides I get not threatening the US but what can you Europeans do ? Embargo me out of all the macarons and the croissants I can eat !

Don't tempt fate, Armstrong. Ever heard of the town of Bjorkhaven? Of course you haven't, because a macaron shortage wiped them out. Poor sods, went cannibal.

So far as paying for the jets are concerned; Pakistanis aren't so much angry about paying for them as they are about the way Indian lobbying ensured that we didn't get them as discounted rates.

The don't bother with Russian jets either. India will beef about those too.

Stop whining, suck your pot belly in and get to work !

Yes Ma'am!

*Salutes*

Or you can just hire me as your Official Food Tester and we can prepare culinary delights such that the world has never tasted before !

Nice try. I'm onto you. First I let you test a slice of cherry pie, then you say you didn't get a good enough taste and want another slice. Then the whole thing! Next thing I know, the whole counter and display is gone too!!!

But on topic talk is so boring !

Yeah, but getting an angry worded letter from the UN... um, mods isn't too fun either. Plus, we'll get out accounts sanctions.

Someone didn't watch that episode of Master Chef Australia !

Austria-alia? Well no wonder I haven't. They spelled Norway wrong!

Those shows make me feel inadequate though. I'm not good enough to be on one.

Atleast @Freyja would survive in the frigid Scandinavia

We came prepared.

 

[Hyperion]

We can leave the Norwegians and the Danes at the mercy of the Swedes........... I bet they'll colonize them in no time!

Furthermore, to neutralize the Norwegians, kill the energy market, which will kill Statoil and then block their sovereign wealth fund through a UN resolution..... they'll be back to eating potatoes!

@Freyja would survive in the frigid Scandinavia

Ok... maybe we nuke the seed bank!

We came prepared.

 

[MastanKhan]

So - Give me F16s or I ll strap a bomb and blow up the whole world?

Is this what the argument has come down to? Well Done! No different from the garden variety terrorist.

You are also acting as a garden variety terrorist as well---. We are not going to blow the world---only you.

 

[Spectre]

You are also acting as a garden variety terrorist as well---. We are not going to blow the world---only you.

I am not the saying give us F 16s or we will 1000s of bombs am I? I am not the one pulls out his nuclear sword at the drop of a hat am I? I am not the one who is warning third parties of nuclear crossfire if I dont get F-16s am I?

What will India get from blowing up the world? Look at the history of the wars b/w our nations and if you can count - then count who started how many wars.

 

[Yahoooooo!]

@MastanKhan bhai "Chutti pe ho kya"? "Aag laga diya hai aapne"

For timepass
How @ a trip to Vegas ?

OR if you're married

a trip to Hawaii?



Good thread... Have read only a couple of pages so far.... (cuz I'm not on chutti yet)

 

[somebozo]

Quite a stupid remark..you cannot fight TTp with Nukes..

 

[Dr Gupta]

Dr, Gupta,

We are not biting back---we are just going into a different direction---no disrespect---no insults---no punn---the U S has made its choice---pakistan has to make its choice too---.

Hi,

The reason I have written about the increase of nucs by pakistan by a multitude---is that supposedly---the U S can take 95-98% of them at their current locations either thru their quick deployment forces target at pakistan 24/7 or thru other assets.

But---as the number of our assets increases and there are more locations---the percentage of the american strike success reduces by a multitude as well.

So---if the number increase to 250--300 nuc and if 10% are mated for immediate delivery----the strike force is a failure---.

We both know that is a impossible act for one thing the warheads and the delivery system are never together plus the sites are guarded by 2000-3000 elite Pakistani soldiers, how would they penetrate such a defence? they have no will to fight anymore they are tired and battle worn through conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only way they could would be sabotage and from within (someone who knows their exact location) but even with this there is no guarantee.

@MastanKhan when you increase the range of the missiles with a radius that can reach cities like Tel Aviv, London and Washington the neo-cons.. will

 

[django]

Hi,

Let the U S stop the sale----. Pakistan must increase the production of nuclear weapons by at least a 1000%.

So if the U S wants to cut off the conventional power base---no problem---let us increase the nuclear threshold---.

The U S senators think that they got us by the ball joints---that is fine---let us increase the threshold---let us take the number of nuclear weapons to 500 at least---and let us start serious production of ICBM's---and other missile systems---.

If the U S wants to play the game---that is fine----two can play it better---. Let us see who blinks first.

Kudos to your suggestion MK bhai.