What's new

Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it so hard to understand they aren't talking about your country here ? :azn: but rather of a new scientific advancements in explosives ...

My mistake. i confused 2 of the articles. The Indian CL-20, we don't claim that we invented it, just developed a version of it, and it is twice as powerful as HMX.

The scientists mixed HMX with China Lake since CL is too unstable, all I'm saying is that India has CL-20 and HMX too. So it has the capacity to make the most powerful conventional explosive.
 
.
India currently Operates 20 PHWR civil and about 3-4 of various types experimental.

No , get me those 7 operational FBR you were talking about and we will talk further :azn: ... Counting every single nuclear reactor in India of any type wont make your point here :azn: ... My country operates nuclear reactors too , shall i start lecturing you about them ? :D

EzioAltaïr;3386807 said:
My mistake. i confused 2 of the articles. The Indian CL-20, we don't claim that we invented it, just developed a version of it, and it is twice as powerful as HMX.

The scientists mixed HMX with China Lake since CL is too unstable, all I'm saying is that India has CL-20 and HMX too. So it has the capacity to make the most powerful conventional explosive.

No , I am not denying that , I am just criticizing the cheer leading your fellow country men has put forward on the development of a well known chemical synthesized decades ago ... Any country can develop those by following the scientific papers and the research that already exist ... US did it in '87 yet never deployed it , there must be some reason right ? :azn: ... The CL 20 is still being experimented and it will years before it found uses in military ...

You really think mixing two explosives is a child's play ?

1st FBR has been Running for almost 10 years ... the 2nd FBR is ready at Kalpakkam.

You mean Terrorists, Taliban Militias... and the growing Indian economy etc...

The construction of this PFBR at Kalpakkam is due to be completed in 2012. The commissioning date of the reactor should be known by mid 2012. [60] [61] Loading of the fuel is expected in the early part of 2013, followed by one year of system testing after the reactor achieves criticality. Commercial generation of electricity can be expected by 2015. [56]

About the 7 others you mentioned , there are plans to develop only 4 besides this prototype in TN :azn: ... Why make ridiculous claims about things that do not exist ? :azn: ... Even the first one isn't operational and not even expected to be until 2015 and here you are talking about five more reactors , way to go ! :lol:

In addition, the country proposes to undertake the construction of four FBRs as part of the 12th Five Year Plan spanning 2012-17, thus targeting 2500 MW from the five reactors. [62] [63]

Go and look " proposes " in the dictionary ...

You mean people that are painted in pink just because they go off topic and start to troll ? :azn: ... Sure , I do ...
 
.
Secur said:
Not really , we assume worst case scenarios for our country and discuss on that unlike some ... We do not think our weapons are invincible , make ridiculous claims about non existent things and capabilities and underestimate others

Does it matter , if we have enough of other stuff to make sure India ceases to exist ?


And what is that stuff.... super boy ?

This stuff:

Pakistan World's 3rd Great Nuclear Power - Report by IndiaTv - YouTube

Pange matt lo lallo, vardh ke rakh dea geh!
 
.
WTF how is this terrible idea? Its battlefield missile we have designed and invested in this to use in battlefield not for the museums and its a perfect weapon of choice against Indian IGB's because it will only destroy Indian military targets in battle field civilian causalities will be minimal. :P

Secondly i don't see any full scale war between India and Pakistan in next 5 years, Indian FM was in Pakistan yesterday and we have seen some good developments :)
 
.
Perhaps the most credible endorsement of Pakistan's nuclear security regime comes from its most steadfast enemy. The consensus among India's top generals and defense experts is that Pakistan's nukes are pretty secure. "No one can be 100 percent secure, but I think they are more than 99 percent secure," said Shashindra Tyagi, a former chief of staff of the Indian Air Force. "They keep a very close watch on personnel. All of the steps that could be taken have been taken. This business of the Taliban taking over -- it can't be ruled out, but I think it's unlikely. The Pakistani military understands the threats they face better than anyone, and they are smart enough to take care it."


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...-develop-battlefield-nukes.html#ixzz25xDK9a9A


pssshhhhhhhhh.. :tdown:

who do these people think they are?
 
.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Thar attack scenario India invades Pakistan with many small armored columns; thus, tactical nukes will not be employed there.

I think it's still quite a stretch to see ANY scenario where Pakistan could actually employ tactical nukes to its practical advantage in a war with India. That's why, even if India and Pakistan don't want to get rid of their nukes entirely, it makes good sense for them to ban these - at least for Pakistan.

There won't be small armor invasions, small armor invasions can be countered, in the desert area,there would be heavy concentrated armor/infantry push, to grab lot of territory. Cold Start is like Blitzkrieg,but more refined and changes made to it. Major armor pushes at different locations and so on.
 
.

How many reactors Pakistan operates and how many of them are indigenous ?

The Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) is a breeder reactor located at Kalpakkam, India.[1] The Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research (IGCAR) and Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) jointly designed, constructed, and operate the reactor.

It first reached criticality in October 1985, making India the sixth nation to have the technology to build and operate an FBTR after United States, UK, France, Japan and the former USSR. The reactor was designed to produce 40 MW of thermal power and 13.2 MW of electrical power. The FBTR has rarely operated at its designed capacity and had to be shut down between 1987 and 1989 due to technical problems. From 1989 to 1992, the reactor operated at 1 MW. In 1993, the reactor's power level was raised to 10.5 MW. The initial nuclear fuel core used in the FBTR consisted of approximately 50 kg of weapons-grade plutonium. In September 2002, fuel burn-up in the FBTR for the first time reached the 100,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU) mark. This is considered an important milestone in breeder reactor technology. Using the experience gained from the operation of the FBTR, a 500 MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is in advanced stage of construction at Kalpakkam.

FBTR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the very place you copied the details.
 
.
This stuff:

Pakistan World's 3rd Great Nuclear Power - Report by IndiaTv - YouTube

Pange matt lo lallo, vardh ke rakh dea geh!

There are many more videos by this very own channel... which you'd not want to watch ever.

Pakistani Nukes are very Big in size and have poor weight to yield ratio.

Upto 12KT claimed device weights 380-400kg.
Upto 25KT claimed device weights 425-450kg.
Upto 40KT claimed device weights 525-550kg.

All devices based Uranium HEU.

In comparison Indian Devices

Upto 17KT claimed device weights 100kg.
Upto 50KT claimed device weights 250kg.
Upto 150KT claimed device weights 450kg.
Upto 200KT claimed device weights 800kg.

All devices Boosted fission designs using Plutonium and Tritium+Deuterium for trigger.

Upto 200KT claimed device weights 270Kg.
Upto 300KT claimed device weights 350Kg.

Both devices are Thermonuclear designs.

Upto450KT calimed weighting 375Kg in Developmental phase.
 
.
There are many more videos by this very own channel... which you'd not want to watch ever.

Pakistani Nukes are very Big in size and have poor weight to yield ratio.

Upto 12KT claimed device weights 380-400kg.
Upto 25KT claimed device weights 425-450kg.
Upto 40KT claimed device weights 525-550kg.

All devices based Uranium HEU.

In comparison Indian Devices

Upto 17KT claimed device weights 100kg.
Upto 50KT claimed device weights 250kg.
Upto 150KT claimed device weights 450kg.
Upto 200KT claimed device weights 800kg.

All devices Boosted fission designs using Plutonium and Tritium+Deuterium for trigger.

Upto 200KT claimed device weights 270Kg.
Upto 300KT claimed device weights 350Kg.

Both devices are Thermonuclear designs.

Upto450KT calimed weighting 375Kg in Developmental phase.


Your brian farts continue. 1998 test showed Pakistani atom bombs had a better yield than Indians. And do you think Our cruise missiles and tactical nuclear missiles will use uranium based atom boms?
 
.
How many reactors Pakistan operates and how many of them are indigenous ?

From the very place you copied the details.

Get me those 7 operational FBR's which only India operates and we will talk further about Pakistani reactors and whether they are indigenous or not :azn: ... Do not divert the course of discussion ...

You made a ridiculous claim thinking that nobody would bother to research and got busted ...

I am not saying that India hasn't built a FBR , the one developed in '87 is an obsolete design capable of 40 MWT and used for experimental purposes ever since ... Even the second one being developed in TN hasn't reached operational status and isn't expected to do so until 2015 ... :azn: ... Your Govt just plans to build 4 more , does it equate to India operating them at the moment ?

Indian prototype FBR delayed

India's first fast breeder reactor (FBR) is likely to be delayed by up to one year, a senior official from the Department of Atomic Energy told the Business Standard newspaper. The 500 MWe prototype FBR, under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, Tamil Nadu state, was initially expected to be commissioned by the end of 2010.

But I guess , it is a routine for you guys :azn: ... And you dream of 4 more in 15 years :lol: ...
If history is any indication , you shouldn't be too optimistic ...

Pakistani Nukes are very Big in size and have poor weight to yield ratio.

In comparison Indian Devices

Really ? Any source for that claim or was it another fan boy statement by you just as usual and needs to be added to the list I posted a couple pages ago ? :azn:

How do you know the yield and weight of the nuclear weapon which even your defense analyst wont be sure about since these things are top secret and not for common citizen to know ? :rofl:

Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,’‘ Santhanam told [the Times of India] on Wednesday.

Yes, India’s thermonuclear device probably probably did fizzle, looking at the seismic data.
Some Indian scientists, including the former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission PK Iyengar and now Santhanam, keep pointing out this somewhat embarrassing fact because it is part of an argument for India to resume nuclear testing.


There are substantial reasons for skepticism. India claimed that it detonated three devices on 11 May 1998 at Pokhran (right)—a 43-kiloton thermonuclear explosion, a 12-kiloton fission explosion and a 0.2-kiloton fission explosion. (India then claims to have conducted low yield tests on 13 May 1998.)


Seismic analyses (particularly Wallace et al) conclude the cumulative yield for the 11 May tests was only 12-kilotons. A yield that low is probably “too small to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon”—suggesting the test fizzled.
A former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, PK Iyengar, has used calculations similar to those of Wallace et al to suggest that the second stage of the two-stage thermonuclear weapon failed to ignite—“the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent.”


http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2445/indias-h-bomb-revisited

You are claiming to possess thermonuclear weapons when even your tests failed which is confirmed by the very people who carried it out , even they stress that India needs to resume testing :lol: My question is " how many tests have been conducted afterwards " ? :azn: ZERO ! Where are these thermonuclear weapons , kid ? In the same place as your 7 operational FBR's ... So better learn about things instead of being ridiculed again and again ...
 
.
Your brian farts continue. 1998 test showed Pakistani atom bombs had a better yield than Indians. And do you think Our cruise missiles and tactical nuclear missiles will use uranium based atom boms?

India and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Largest yield test 20-60 kt total in Pokhran-II (yield is disputed)[1]

And this guy is claiming Indian nukes to be in the hundred kT's range :rofl: Entertainment continues ... :lol:

From the very place you copied the details.

Yes I did , because I think it is better to research than to make ridiculous claims and talk out of behind :azn: ...
 
.
EzioAltaïr;3381117 said:
As far as I've read, India made nukes in 1974, and made 5 huge tests in 1998, then threatened Pakistan. Pakistan reacted and detonated 6 nukes, 20 days after that. I know you guys consider yourselves geniuses, but noone can make nukes from scratch in 20 days. This proves that Pakistan has had a nuke program looooong before Chagai and Pokhran tests.

RAW provided intel about these nukes, India threatened Pakistan, and you guys played right into our hands and exposed your nukes to the world. Pity, thanks to Moraji Desai, pakistan plugged the leak, we can;t get more info now.



According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[77] –
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[78] The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[79] –
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[80] Gertjan Dijkink writes –
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[81] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[8] –
India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[82]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[83]
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[9] –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[84] –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[85] –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

There. other's who were alive back then. :P

As I wrote earlier that people will always have4 different opinions. Some will say Pakistan won, some will say india won and some will say it was inconclusive. I was just replying to the article were the writer had without giving any evidence or facts stated that India won all three wars.

And as for Pakistani nukes, we had this program started in the 1970's after the Indian nuclear tests of 1974. Only a nincompoop will believe that Pakistan made a bomb in 20 days.
 
.

As I said before you'll see them operational by the time you complete your school... in the mean time you can have this.

polls_lolipops_4723_346994_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg


As for what K. Shanthanam said.

Here's what the Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram has to say on this supporting what APJ Abdul Kalam had said earlier.

“If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”


In a 2000 article, The May 1998 Pokhran tests: Scientific aspects, republished in 2008 with some updated details, in a French journal, ‘Atoms for Peace,’ Dr. Chidambaram has argued that western seismologists who under-estimated the Pokhran yields did so because they did not take into account the geological structure at the Indian testing range. They also failed to appreciate that India’s weapons designers purposely went for lower yields because the shots had to be fired in existing shafts which could not be dug any deeper for fear of detection. Higher yields, then, would have caused damage to nearby villages and also led to the possible venting of radioactivity.

Dr. Chidambaram wrote that the thermonuclear device tested was “a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited.” He said the argument that the secondary stage failed to perform is belied by post-shot radioactivity measurements on samples extracted from the test site which showed significant activity of sodium-22 and manganese-54, both by-products of a fusion reaction rather than pure fission. “From a study of this radioactivity and an estimate of the cavity radius, confirmed by drilling operations at positions away from ground zero, the total yield as well as the break-up of the fission and fusion yields could be calculated.” Based on this, he said, BARC scientists worked out a total yield of 50 +/- 10 kt for the thermonuclear device, which was consistent with both the design yield and seismic estimates.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/siddharth-varadarajan/article10457.ece

The Damage to the Villages nearby.

Aftermath.jpg


Validating the fact that the Bigger version of the Thermonuclear Bomb would've been harmful to the people.

ShaktiBomb.jpg


The 45KT yield Bomb which was detonated instead of the bigger version... Note that its size is very small as big as a 200mm artillery shell.

Your brian farts continue. 1998 test showed Pakistani atom bombs had a better yield than Indians. And do you think Our cruise missiles and tactical nuclear missiles will use uranium based atom boms?

How can a normal Fission device have a better yield than a fusion or boosted fusion devices ?

FieldProvenHighConfidenceWpns-DRDOM.jpg


The Indian designs.

North Korean Missiles

Data on Pakistani designs.

Besides the western estimates aren't too good for Pakistan... even worse than what they calculated for India.
 
.
India and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Largest yield test 20-60 kt total in Pokhran-II (yield is disputed)[1]

And this guy is claiming Indian nukes to be in the hundred kT's range :rofl: Entertainment continues ... :lol:



Yes I did , because I think it is better to research than to make ridiculous claims and talk out of behind :azn: ...

Pokhran-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The yields from the three tests on 11 May 1998 were put at 58 kilotons by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre based on seismic data obtained at the test site 3 kilometres from the test shafts. The tests were defined as a complete success, and it was determined that all the devices and their components had performed flawlessly. To remove all doubts, the senior scientists involved in the Pokhran operations addressed the press on the 17th of May. In this press meet the scientists claimed that the fission device produced a yield of 15 kt and .3 kt was obtained from the low yield device. They also claimed that the thermonuclear device gave a total yield of 45 kt, 15 kt from the fission trigger and 30 kt from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device (200 kt) was reduced to 45 kt in order to minimize seismic damage to villages near the test range. The village closest to the test range, Khetolai, was a mere 5 kilometres away. Neutral assessment by western scholars estimates that Shakti-I was between 29-35 kt, and Shakti-2 was 12 kt.[18]

Recent allegations
In 2009 it was widely reported that a retired atomic scientist, K. Santhanam who was closely associated with the tests, claims that the 1998 tests were not as successful as the government had claimed they were.[19][20] These claims were widely dismissed in India, including a specific dismissal by A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who cited evidence and data to prove his point.[21]
 
.
Some corrections to authors estimates
1- Khushab has now 5 reactors and expansion continues currently.
2- The uranium supply from D G khan is enough for the time being in keeping Pakistan independent from NSG.
3- These reactors are of indigenous design (not clear on to what extent chinese were involved), primarily being the research reactors.
4- Since nothing is sought from NSG, thus these reactors are not subject to IAEA supervision.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom