Pakistan willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure its survival if necessary

[Reichsmarschall]

While the minister is not ruling out using nuclear weapons as a tool of conquest, this is the first declaration by a declared nuclear power that I know of that baldly states that their purpose is to defeat internal rebellion: we now know what West Pakistan would have done to East Pakistan if it had possessed a nuclear weapon in 1971.

certainly not much worse than the what the US has done in last 70 years and Israel is doing to this day

 

[Solomon2]

certainly not much worse than the what the US has done in last 70 years and Israel is doing to this day

Either your view of reality is highly distorted or else you are knowingly circulating lies.

The more I think about it, the more singular I find the minister's statement. I don't recall that any other nuclear weapons state has declared that the purpose of their nukes is to defeat internal rebellions.

The Soviets never declared such a policy. If they had, and acted on it, then the entire U.S.S.R. might not be in the dustbin of history, just the smoking remnants of Chechnya and the Baltics. The Russians can be cruel, but are too big-hearted to contemplate the deaths of millions of their own innocent citizens just to stay in power; better a regime change instead.

Pakistani leaders are obviously made of different stuff. The spirit of '71 lives on, doesn't it?

 

[Dalit]

Either your view of reality is highly distorted or else you are knowingly circulating lies.

The more I think about it, the more singular I find the minister's statement. I don't recall that any other nuclear weapons state has declared that the purpose of their nukes is to defeat internal rebellions.

The Soviets never declared such a policy. If they had, and acted on it, then the entire U.S.S.R. might not be in the dustbin of history, just the smoking remnants of Chechnya and the Baltics. The Russians can be cruel, but are too big-hearted to contemplate the deaths of millions of their own innocent citizens just to stay in power; better a regime change instead.

Pakistani leaders are obviously made of different stuff. The spirit of '71 lives on, doesn't it?

A lot of diarrhea coming from a person who lives in an Apartheid state.

A Zionist is the last person on the planet who should be lecturing anyone about anything.

You can’t make peace with stone throwing Palestinians and bomb their children with missiles. You blatantly steal and occupy territory which doesn’t belong to you. Despite the fact that the world scolds you for it.

Now you are lecturing Pakistanis about nukes when your own country is known to possess them.

You need to take a hike.

 

[oOo]

Talk about changing the goal post.



View attachment 436649

Just like your general, you're making a poor attempt to save face. Sad really

Can you differentiate war goals and battle goals?

A goon invaded your house in night, try to steal your property. You woke up, beat the goon up and try to catch him for good but he escapes leaving your property with you.

Next day goon was found claiming a win last night as you failed to capture him.

Sounds legit?

 

[Solomon2]

A lot of...A Zionist is the last person -

"We charge the prelatical clergy with popery to make them odious, though we know they are guilty of no such thing."​

 

[Dalit]

Apart from being a terrible human, you sure as hell suck as a poet.

 

[Hamza913]

Can you differentiate war goals and battle goals?

A goon invaded your house in night, try to steal your property. You woke up, beat the goon up and try to catch him for good but he escapes leaving your property with you.

Next day goon was found claiming a win last night as you failed to capture him.

Sounds legit?

If you tried to invade the goons house in retaliation but failed, then I'd call that a stalemate, cause that's what happened in 1965.

 

[Adonis]

Pakistan willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure its survival if necessary

Use of nuclear weapon by a nuclear state against another nuclear state will not ensure it's survival but doom for sure.

 

[Reichsmarschall]

Either your view of reality is highly distorted or else you are knowingly circulating lies.

The more I think about it, the more singular I find the minister's statement. I don't recall that any other nuclear weapons state has declared that the purpose of their nukes is to defeat internal rebellions.

The Soviets never declared such a policy. If they had, and acted on it, then the entire U.S.S.R. might not be in the dustbin of history, just the smoking remnants of Chechnya and the Baltics. The Russians can be cruel, but are too big-hearted to contemplate the deaths of millions of their own innocent citizens just to stay in power; better a regime change instead.

Pakistani leaders are obviously made of different stuff. The spirit of '71 lives on, doesn't it?

can you tell me name of a state which used nukes twice on civilian population of the nonnuclear nation and also lost some nukes in later years?
you can also google samson option

 

[oOo]

If you tried to invade the goons house in retaliation but failed, then I'd call that a stalemate, cause that's what happened in 1965.

Invading goon house was never your intentions and goal right? You have saved yourself and your property from a goon who originally intended to rob you, and that should matter. Capturing or punishing the goon is only incentive and not ultimate goal.

As an aggressor Pak had the goal of liberating or capturing Kashmir. - Its primary objective.
As a defender India had the goal to resist and not let the Kashmir fall to Pakistan forces. - Its primary objective.

Anything apart from these objectives were incentives or secondary in nature. Pakistan failed to achieve the objective for which it started the war.

 

[Hamza913]

Invading goon house was never your intentions and goal right? You have saved yourself and your property from a goon who originally intended to rob you, and that should matter. Capturing or punishing the goon is only incentive and not ultimate goal.

As an aggressor Pak had the goal of liberating or capturing Kashmir. - Its primary objective.
As a defender India had the goal to resist and not let the Kashmir fall to Pakistan forces. - Its primary objective.

Anything apart from these objectives were incentives or secondary in nature. Pakistan failed to achieve the objective for which it started the war.

Hindustan also tried to invade Pakistan. It failed. So the war was a stalemate.

If Hindustan acted purely defensively, then yes 1965 would be considered a Hindustani victory. But that's not what happened. Hindustan tried to invade Pakistan, but failed.

 

[oOo]

Hindustan also tried to invade Pakistan. It failed. So the war was a stalemate.

If Hindustan acted purely defensively, then yes 1965 would be considered a Hindustani victory. But that's not what happened. Hindustan tried to invade Pakistan, but failed.

Mate, I think you have by now understood what I am trying to say and we are stretching un-necessary now.

When we discuss war, we need to determine the aggressor and that help us understanding the war objective. Did you believe India wanted to invade Lahore and merge it with Indian Republic? This is impractical to accept. Now what else could be the reason of India invading Pakistan across IB? If you think carefully, the whole motive was to capture Pakistani land so that it can be used to negotiate for the Indian lost land. Lahore or no Lahore, the captured pakistani land was used precisely to swap with Indian land and thus resulting in India defending the territory what it actually holds pre war. War slogans like dinner at Lahore doesn't constitute a war objective, they are at best battle objectives which bear very little significance on war outcome.

 

[Hamza913]

Mate, I think you have by now understood what I am trying to say and we are stretching un-necessary now.

When we discuss war, we need to determine the aggressor and that help us understanding the war objective. Did you believe India wanted to invade Lahore and merge it with Indian Republic? This is impractical to accept. Now what else could be the reason of India invading Pakistan across IB? If you think carefully, the whole motive was to capture Pakistani land so that it can be used to negotiate for the Indian lost land. Lahore or no Lahore, the captured pakistani land was used precisely to swap with Indian land and thus resulting in India defending the territory what it actually holds pre war. War slogans like dinner at Lahore doesn't constitute a war objective, they are at best battle objectives which bear very little significance on war outcome.

Hindustan clearly attempted to seize major cities in Pakistan, particularly Lahore. The fact that Hindustan failed makes it a stalemate.

You can say whatever you want, but that's what happened.

 

[oOo]

Hindustan clearly attempted to seize major cities in Pakistan, particularly Lahore. The fact that Hindustan failed makes it a stalemate.

You can say whatever you want, but that's what happened.

Ok.

 

[Sucha Kuggu]

I am sure Indian will not trigger a nuke on Pakistan, coz they are not sure if its gona lift-off from launch pad , and if it don't ...