If Pakistan Splinters - Bharat Verma

[DivineHeretic]

@bennebose,

Your theories are well and good, but they do not apply to the growing stovk of tactical nuclear weapons.

There will be fail-safes no doubt, but given that these nukes are under the policy of use it or lose it, they will be spread among lower tier commanders and will have a shorter chain of approval.

and to add to that, a tac-nuke is usually self contained ready to use shell. It just needs arming codes, and it can be off.

 

[roma]

packland might turn out to be china's vietnam ...similar to usa's experience in vietnam , where they fought only to
to lose a lot of men and
achieve nothing

 

[bennedose]

@bennebose,

Your theories are well and good, but they do not apply to the growing stovk of tactical nuclear weapons.

There will be fail-safes no doubt, but given that these nukes are under the policy of use it or lose it, they will be spread among lower tier commanders and will have a shorter chain of approval.

and to add to that, a tac-nuke is usually self contained ready to use shell. It just needs arming codes, and it can be off.

Tactical nuclear weapons are of no use. They use too much Plutonium and do very little damage. They are also very difficult to design reliably. Pakistan's threat of tactical nuke is simply a scare tactic which is of no use because they will have their butt kicked anyway.

Only the US and USSR managed to make 155 mm nuclear shells. Most tactical nukes were miniaturized to about 30 cm in diameter. Each of these uses so much Plutonium (for a very small bang - maybe 1 or 2 kilotons) that Pakistan's entire known stock of Pu will be used up in a few dozen shells. I don't believe that they have tactical nukes at all. Small tactical nukes cannot be made using Pakistan's primary nuclear bomb fuel - Uranium because the diameter will be too large. However nothing stops them from using regular city busters on the battle field as a "tactical" nuke. But that is a waste. They will get wiped out after doing very little damage.

Here is some reading material. Check the sizes that the US achieved with much testing, the humongous amounts of Pu used and the low yield
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-2.html#Nfaq4.2.2

The absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb is determined by the smallest critical mass that will produce a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-25% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector will reduce this, but the necessary high explosive and packaging will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 10-15 kg.

The W54 warhead used in the Davy Crockett had a minimum mass of about 23 kg, and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 kt in various mods (probably achieved by varying the fissile content). The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The W-54 probably represents a near minimum diameter for a spherical implosion device (the U.S. has conducted tests of a 25.4 cm implosion system however).

This is Pakistan' Plutonium stockpile
http://fissilematerials.org/countries/pakistan.html

As of the end of 2012, Pakistan had an accumulated stockpile estimated as about 0.15±0.05 tonnes of plutonium. It is currently producing about 12-24 kg of plutonium per year, enough for 2-6 plutonium weapons.

At 15 kg per weapon the entire stock of Pakistan would make about 10 weapons - each of less than 1 kiloton. And far more difficult to make reliable But used as proper larger sized non tactical nukes their yield would be much higher and much more dangerous.

In the Indian tests India had used about 6-8 kg of Pu in one bomb. That can give a 15 kiloton or bigger punch as opposed to just 1 kiloton with 15 kg in a tactical nuke. Pu is more valuable than gold.

 

[ice berg]

so now you're gonna teach us about the importance of a basic English course,considering the fact that you can't even write a simple English sentence without the help of the Google translator......

I am sure you know all about that, been an expert user yourself.

Feel free to get back to topic when you are done with your usual prank.

 

[t_co]

Three things posters here should note:

1. A nuke, tactical or not, does not need to be mated to a launch system to detonate. Many strategic nukes are also self-contained, ready-to-use warheads that simply need arming codes to detonate. (The US B61 comes to mind.)
2. The technical capacity to detonate a nuke can come together even in the absence of a clear chain of command or stable political environment. Doubly true if an external non-governmental actor (e.g. the Saudi/Qatari networks currently active in Syria) is willing to finance such a team.
3. Pakistan does not refrain from nuking India because it has an India-lover at the helm; it refrains from nuking India because India would retaliate and destroy Pakistan, and the person who can pull the trigger on a Pakistani nuke does not want Pakistan to be destroyed. If Pakistan no longer existed as a country, and/or the person who could pull the trigger on a Pakistani nuke no longer had a homeland to care about, what is stopping them from putting a 25kt warhead on a boat and detonating it in Mumbai harbor?

 

[bennedose]

3. Pakistan does not refrain from nuking India because it has an India-lover at the helm; it refrains from nuking India because India would retaliate and destroy Pakistan, and the person who can pull the trigger on a Pakistani nuke does not want Pakistan to be destroyed. If Pakistan no longer existed as a country, and/or the person who could pull the trigger on a Pakistani nuke no longer had a homeland to care about, what is stopping them from putting a 25kt warhead on a boat and detonating it in Mumbai harbor?

"India lover at the helm"? That is a joke. Clearly You don't know who is at the helm in Pakistan. If you think Nawaz Sharif is an India lover and imagine that he is at the helm you are exposing your ignorance. You know nothing about Pakistan

If you said Kiyani is at the helm and that he is an India lover, then you still don't know what you are tallking about.

If you think Hafiz Saeed is at the helm and that he is an India lover, then you are once again exposing how little you know about Pakistan

The reason why India has screwed Pakistan despite desperate efforts from China is because India knows Pakis much better than the Chinese. You are talking ludicrous bullshit here.

As regards nukes of course - China can hand a working nuke to anyone so none of the technical nuclear arguments are fool proof. China already did that for Pakistan and can do so again - after it collapses - if you guys had any idea of who is who in Pakistan. And clearly you don't have a clue...

That apart, the reasoning that only India lovers will be removed when Pakistan collapses and all China and US lovers will remain is deliberate denial of logic. Apart from even more ignorance of Pakistan and Pakistanis. China made a huge error in investing so much in Pakistan - and now you have to clutch at straws and resort to laughable nonsense to try and say that a collapsed Pakistan will be a bigger problem for India. No sir. It will be a huge problem for other neighbors and the US and the risk to India will not increase. It can only decrease.

 

[bennedose]

Find the India lover in Pakistan who is helping to keep India safe from Chinese nukes made in Pakistan:
1. Ayub Khan the man who started the 1965 war
2. Yahya Khan the man who oversaw the 1971 war
3. Tikka Khan the butcher of Baluchistan and Bangladesh
4. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto the man who made Pakis eat grass to develop nuclear weapons
5. Benazir Bhutto who followed her father's nuclear policies
6. Nawaz Sharif who conducted Chinese nuclear tests in Baluchistan
7. Asif Ali Zardari under whose watch terrorism peaked in India
8. Pervez Musharraf the planner of Kargil whose conversation in a Chinese hotel room was recorded by Indian intel
9. Gen Kiyani the planner of 26/11 who has declared India to be the main enemy
10. Hafiz Saeed, the man who oversaw the 26/11 Mumbai attacks
11. Dawood Ibrahim who planned the 1993 Mumbai blasts

Who is the India lover at the helm?

Anyone who asks a Chinese for advice about Pakistan is begging to botch thing up badly - like Chinese policy on Pakistan. No wonder China's Pakistan policy and its "pearl" Gwadar and its "land route" for oil is in such a big mess. Talk about an epic fail in foreign policy!

 

[vishwaprasad]

If Pakistan disintegrates then it will be a blessing disguise for India...I am surprised that some people think that stronger and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest....it will be a bigger headache rather....

Stronger and prosperous Pakistan means more aggressive posture against India on Kashmir and other issues such as water, considering the type of leaders we have I wont be surprised if stronger/stable Pakistan behaves like Israel and India behaves like Palestine or Syria. Just see their guts today when their economy is weaker, they are facing drone attacks by US and still they are violating our borders killing our soldiers, then imagine what they will be capable of doing with stronger military and stable economy...they will even dare to bomb the dams which we are building on rivers in kashmir...and our leaders reaction??? better not discuss....

If Pakistan disintegrates then it will benefit India in so many ways....

Pakistan will loose its access to ocean which means it will become a landlocked nation which will be of a lesser importance in global matters....imagine if Pak is limited now till punjab then it will be on the mercy of independent Baluchistan and Sindhudesh (Jihanpur) for its trade and other needs. These states will be India friendly and can create a trouble for landlocked Pakistan if it ever dares to trouble India....

Landlocked Pakistan means India can now fully concentrate on Indian ocean and Malacca straights as Pak navy will be shared between Baloch republic and Sindhu Desh navies which will be friendly with India....India can just depend on its coast guard for the security of arabian ocean borders....this will also mean another strategic blunder for China which is already vulnerable to India in straights of Malacca will now loose its land corridor in the form of Pakistan.....

Pak nukes can be shared between Sindhudesh, Balochistan, Pakhtunistan or they can be merged under Indian nuclear command....so ultimately hanging sword of nuclear bomb is gone and there will be only 1 major enemy on our eastern border....we have managed with both of them on our east and west till date so managing 1 will not be an issue.....

 

[t_co]

"India lover at the helm"? That is a joke. Clearly You don't know who is at the helm in Pakistan. If you think Nawaz Sharif is an India lover and imagine that he is at the helm you are exposing your ignorance. You know nothing about Pakistan

1. Here is what you said:

But guess what" Pakistanis are already anti India to the highest degree. As one Chinese visitor to this thread pointed out, they have all been indoctrinated to hate India. So if they all hate India how is the risk to India suddenly going to increase if Pakistan collapses? Logically the implication is that there must be some India lover now who is stopping nukes from hitting India now, but suddenly when Pakistan collapses the India lovers will simply vanish leaving only the India haters as a complete team to launch a rogue nuke.

You made no mention this was a joke. Ergo, you are contradicting yourself. Ergo, the point that, absent the traditional logic of mutually assured destruction, Pakistani terrorists would have no incentive not to nuke India, still stands.

2. You have not addressed these two points:

1. A nuke, tactical or not, does not need to be mated to a launch system to detonate. Many strategic nukes are also self-contained, ready-to-use warheads that simply need arming codes to detonate. (The US B61 comes to mind.)
2. The technical capacity to detonate a nuke can come together even in the absence of a clear chain of command or stable political environment. Doubly true if an external non-governmental actor (e.g. the Saudi/Qatari networks currently active in Syria) is willing to finance such a team.

This disproves your argument regarding the risk of nuclear terrorism in India following a Pakistani breakup.

Finally, you have stated:

And even if two or three nukes are set off in India - India can take it. Pakistan, and one of China's threadbare "string of pearls" will be finished. Japan became better after two nukes. Why not India? Maybe a post-nuke india will then help improve China similarly, with Pakistan out of the way.

I would like you to be more explicit here. How would India improve after two or three nukes are set off in India? Would such an improvement be worth the possible loss of a million Indian lives?

 

[bennedose]

1. Here is what you said:



You made no mention this was a joke. Ergo, you are contradicting yourself. Ergo, the point that, absent the traditional logic of mutually assured destruction, Pakistani terrorists would have no incentive not to nuke India, still stands.

2. You have not addressed these two points:



This disproves your argument regarding the risk of nuclear terrorism in India following a Pakistani breakup.

Finally, you have stated:



I would like you to be more explicit here. How would India improve after two or three nukes are set off in India? Would such an improvement be worth the possible loss of a million Indian lives?

In fact China could provide terrorist with a nuke to explode in an Indan harbour - so all of my arguments about Pakistani nukes could be wrong. That is what I said.

The assumption that India lovers exist today and only they will be eliminated when Pakistan disintegrates is a baseless assumption made by you.

Pakistan has people who hate the US and a few who hate China. China haters are not many in number, but then even America haters were not many in number a short few years ago. Islamic groups in Pakistan started hating the US after the US put pressure on the Pakistan army to act against them.

The Chinese too have put pressure on the Pakistan army to act against Islamic groups who are supporting Uighurs. These are the people who will want revenge and they will only be encouraged by interested people in India.

For years Pakistan has told is people that the US will help them regain Kashmir and that China will pour in money and jobs and road links. China instead will start closing its borders - and that is creating more anger. When Pakistan breaks up US haters and China haters will have a free hand.No need for you to believe this. It is enough if I believe it. But I also believe that China must keep its promises to Pakistan. It is broken promises that Pakistanis dislike. If Pakistan disintegrates, the US will fare worse than China. China can escape by building roads and railways in Pakistan and creating jobs for your Pakistani friends. China has been an unreliable friend. You supplied Jf 17s. But where are the J 10s. You supplied enriched Uranium. But what about Plutonium? You are building nuclear reactors in Karachi - but thy are safeguarded. How will that help Pakistan against India?

China has a chance of keeping China lovers in Pakistan happy and wll fed. But you have to act now. I see China asleep at the borser with Pakistan - making purring noises and doing nothing.

Anger against China will rise as the country goes bankrupt and finds a wealthy China doing nothing. I look forward to either event. if you support Pakistan our risk will remain the same. if you fail to support them Inia's risk will decrease. much fun

And yes, Japan became a great nation after two nukes. maybe India will too? And maybe China will become even grater after a a few nukes. It may be good for the world.