Pakistan to overtake Britain as world's fifth largest nuclear power

[53fd]

Was really surprised that Pakistan has over taken Britain, to be the 5th most powerful nation in amount of nuclear weapons and yet to be 44th highest GDP nation, shows how effective and good the Pakistan ministry of defence is.

I guess its increasing with induction of same Babur missles.

Not something to be proud about, but being the 44th highest GDP nation in the world out of 224 countries in the world is not great, but at least its not like the bharatis ranting and thinking "pakistan is a failed state". Pakistan is also the second biggest economy in South Asia, and is the 27th largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power, far from being a failed state as implied by the bharatis.

 

[FNFAL]

its one thing building and stockpiling nukes, but isnt the maintanence overhead a real worry for a broke nation like pakistan???

@@ folks who say this stockpile is for future...isnt the present enough to be thinking about teh future?
If these weapons are meant o scare off some of the most influential coutries , then it simply lame at best.
One more economic sanction and that gonna be worse that a nuke mushroom.

its more like build em while you still can.....

 

[Cheetah786]

the world knows v r not nuke crazy but your dear friend iran certainly is

i will wait for mods to answer this one

 

[PoKeMon]

Whenever I heard Pakistan is ahead in some field, it comes out to be destructive.
Its not costly about making bombs but its about maintaining live bombs which turns out to be economic backbone breaker.
Is pakistan preparing to fight the whole world or its true that its preparing itself for the so called war against islam by jews and christians?

 

[harsh1488]

i would love to live in a nuke free world anyways even if pakistan had 10 nukes it would be enough to damage the region and on the other hand their only nuclear enemy is india so china can always help with their nukes

 

[Ariopagus]

As a foreigner who is strictly neutral in all this, I was struck by the extent to which the exchanges between Pakistani and Indian correspondents resemble the hostile attitudes seen in Europe at the height of the Cold War, now thankfully over. The fact that both countries appear to feel the need to maximise their nuclear stockpiles is seen by many of you as a sign of success and political or national virility, but in fact it shows a major failing of strategic understanding on both sides. Now I can fully understand why both countries feel the need to maintain a deterrent force, but it is a little sad that some seem to feel that the main role of this vast expenditure (which neither side can well afford given the extent of national poverty) is to threaten the other, not to secure long term peace.

Coming back to my earlier point, the UK deterrent does not need to be excessively large because the government has an explicit counter-value strategy and believes that that the ability to survive an initial strike (using a hidden submarine) and to then destroy 16-32 enemy cities in return is quite sufficient to achieve deterrence. Not many countries would happily accept the loss of their 20 or 30 largest cities and populations. It is therefore unclear to me why some correspondents seem to think that huge nuclear forces are essential, especially when the cost will severely undermine their ability to modernise conventional forces. If India has a no-first use policy it would do well to copy the UK example and move to a submarine force suitable for surviving a first strike. If Pakistan intends to build a large nuclear force then it must expect its neighbours and the international community to suspect her (rightly or wrongly) of eventual aggressive intent. In real terms upgrading the conventional forces of both sides seems to me a better option than indulging in a nuclear arms race that neither side will win.

I shall now look forward to being attacked by those on both sides of the debate.

 

[IceCold]

As a foreigner who is strictly neutral in all this, I was struck by the extent to which the exchanges between Pakistani and Indian correspondents resemble the hostile attitudes seen in Europe at the height of the Cold War, now thankfully over. The fact that both countries appear to feel the need to maximise their nuclear stockpiles is seen by many of you as a sign of success and political or national virility, but in fact it shows a major failing of strategic understanding on both sides. Now I can fully understand why both countries feel the need to maintain a deterrent force, but it is a little sad that some seem to feel that the main role of this vast expenditure (which neither side can well afford given the extent of national poverty) is to threaten the other, not to secure long term peace.

Coming back to my earlier point, the UK deterrent does not need to be excessively large because the government has an explicit counter-value strategy and believes that that the ability to survive an initial strike (using a hidden submarine) and to then destroy 16-32 enemy cities in return is quite sufficient to achieve deterrence. Not many countries would happily accept the loss of their 20 or 30 largest cities and populations. It is therefore unclear to me why some correspondents seem to think that huge nuclear forces are essential, especially when the cost will severely undermine their ability to modernise conventional forces. If India has a no-first use policy it would do well to copy the UK example and move to a submarine force suitable for surviving a first strike. If Pakistan intends to build a large nuclear force then it must expect its neighbours and the international community to suspect her (rightly or wrongly) of eventual aggressive intent. In real terms upgrading the conventional forces of both sides seems to me a better option than indulging in a nuclear arms race that neither side will win.

I shall now look forward to being attacked by those on both sides of the debate.

You have raised valid points, first of all why would anyone attack you. Coming to your post yes the examples you mentioned above is relavent in the case of UK since if it comes down to nuclear exchange UK wont be alone, for starters the USA will too be involved and second UK does not face the same level of threat as we do. In case of Pakistan the example does not fit because Pakistan first of all compared with India is a small country and no matter how much we spent on conventional weapons cannot maintain a parity with India, secondly with the US indo nuclear deal, we are at a serious disadvantage now since India can now spare its own fuel for nuclear weapons, again that puts us on a serious disadvantage. In such scenario Pakistan isnt left with much options other then to increase its own stockpile of nuclear weapons and which by the way does not in any manner suggest our aggressive attitude considering the fact that every time its Pakistan that has been threaten of war and also considering the fact that the nuclear weapons in south asia has prevented a conflict between the 2 sides. I am sorry to say but west particularly the western media is purposely creating hysteria about Pakistan and its nuclear weapons.

 

[jamal18]

The UK has voluntarily reduced its nuclear stockpile in the past.

If they really want, they can produce more.

 

[gaurish]

Well this has been in news for last 2 years as far as i know.. its being said daily that pakistan is producing nukes rapidly, pakistan is set to overtake India with its nuke power........ But guys do u really think India is just waiting and sitting...... With no shortages of funds , with allies such as Russia, With home grown wide pool of scientists, do u guys think India is just sitting?

India has a hold on Arabian Sea and thats the Biggest advantage........ Pakistan Navy wont know how many nukes India has hided in Arabian sea which are ready to be fired at a press of a button....

Its said that only way Pakistan can counter Indian millitary might is by producing more and more nukes... but need to understand that someone will be needed to fire them and fire them effectively.... and know that there will be a gigantic reply if they fire....

 

[Guli Danda]

I will never ever understand Pakistan's ideology of building up nukes..they should concentrate more on their devastated economy,IMO

 

[RazorMC]

I will never ever understand Pakistan's ideology of building up nukes..they should concentrate more on their devastated economy,IMO

I agree, but what use is a big economy if an opponent can easily attack you and destroy infrastructure.

I believe that unlike other countries, we have no intention of dropping nuclear-bombs on enemy cities since this will only kill civilians. I guess this is why our nukes are more tactical in nature, designed to destroy military facilities.

 

[harsh1488]

I agree, but what use is a big economy if an opponent can easily attack you and destroy infrastructure.

I believe that unlike other countries, we have no intention of dropping nuclear-bombs on enemy cities since this will only kill civilians. I guess this is why our nukes are more tactical in nature, designed to destroy military facilities.

actaully nukes are produced to attack strategic and economic centres,the are not worth dropping them in desert in a nuclear war,i bet first target delhi,second mumbai and then the rest as many on this forum have said that pakistan will unload their whole nuke arsenal on india so it doesnt have the strength to counter attack

 

[Ariopagus]

I guess this is why our nukes are more tactical in nature, designed to destroy military facilities.

So do you really think that Pakistan can wage a battlefield nuclear war against India and not have the Indians destroy the main population centres in return? In the late 1970s and early 1980s we had a debate in NATO about whether it would be possible for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to engage in theater nuclear war in central Europe (two Germanys, Poland, Czech Republic) without it escalating. It became clear after 1991, when East German documents were revealed, that the Russians would have retaliated against Western cities. The French suspected this - hence their determination to retain an independent nuclear force to stop the Russians striking their territory. It is clear in any case that tactical nuclear strikes would have 'accidentally' destroyed many towns and cities and I cannot see how Pakistan can think that it can use nuclear weapons purely for tactical operations. Escalation will be inevitable. I would argue that harsh1488 is correct: such weapons might be used for an initial tactical 'demonstration', but would rapidly be used against Indian cities. And India will then destroy the Pakisatn urban areas and infrastructure. So who gains from this? Both sides would do well to study the European situation between 1950-1990 and learn from this. The British have at least been realistic in developing a deterrent strategy powerful enough to deter others and strong enough to drag the Americans into any unavoidable nuclear conflict.

 

[RazorMC]

So do you really think that Pakistan can wage a battlefield nuclear war against India and not have the Indians destroy the main population centres in return? In the late 1970s and early 1980s we had a debate in NATO about whether it would be possible for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to engage in theater nuclear war in central Europe (two Germanys, Poland, Czech Republic) without it escalating. It became clear after 1991, when East German documents were revealed, that the Russians would have retaliated against Western cities. The French suspected this - hence their determination to retain an independent nuclear force to stop the Russians striking their territory. It is clear in any case that tactical nuclear strikes would have 'accidentally' destroyed many towns and cities and I cannot see how Pakistan can think that it can use nuclear weapons purely for tactical operations. Escalation will be inevitable. I would argue that harsh1488 is correct: such weapons might be used for an initial tactical 'demonstration', but would rapidly be used against Indian cities. And India will then destroy the Pakisatn urban areas and infrastructure. So who gains from this? Both sides would do well to study the European situation between 1950-1990 and learn from this. The British have at least been realistic in developing a deterrent strategy powerful enough to deter others and strong enough to drag the Americans into any unavoidable nuclear conflict.

Like i said, i feel that Pakistan will not attack civilian centres, but focus primarily on military installations. Pakistan is already working on second-strike capabilities, but like the rest of military secrets, there is no clear picture here.

 

[RazorMC]

actaully nukes are produced to attack strategic and economic centres,the are not worth dropping them in desert in a nuclear war,i bet first target delhi,second mumbai and then the rest as many on this forum have said that pakistan will unload their whole nuke arsenal on india so it doesnt have the strength to counter attack

India is not a small country and so complete annihilation is not probable. i also don't think that we'll be throwing 100% arsenal. No country would do that despite what it says. otherwise it loses all deterrence.
I also heard India may be developing thermo-nuclear weapons. if that happens then we have no choice but to develop our own regardless of the expense.