'Pak army no match for India's so we want more nukes'

Discussion in 'China' started by SHASH2K2, Dec 1, 2010.

  1. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    WASHINGTON: Despite "pending economic catastrophe," Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a "faster rate" than any other country in the world, according to a stunning American appraisal that forms part of the cables relating to US-Pakistan relations leaked by the whistleblower organization wikileaks.

    The assessment was conveyed by US National Intelligence Officer for South Asia Dr Peter Lavoy to NATO representatives in November 2008 amid widespread, and continuing, apprehensions among major powers, recorded in separate cables, about the security of the weapons and its possible heist by terrorists, extremists and fundamentalists, including those in the government.

    Among those expressing concern about the safety of Pakistani nukes are British and Russian officials, even as American and Chinese interlocutors mull over how to address Pakistan's fear of India that is ostensibly leading it to crank out nuclear weapons rapidly even it stalls a treaty to end production of fissile material (FMCT).

    In one particularly startling cable, a high ranking Chinese official, vice foreign minister He Yafei, is quoted as hearing from a Pakistan general that Pakistan needs nuclear weapons because of its inferior army. "Indeed, a Pakistani military leader said his army was no match for the Indian army," the cable records Yafei as saying.

    But the most elaborate scenario of a nuclear heist in Pakistan comes in a heavily redacted cable which cites an unnamed Russian official questioning the security measures Islamabad claims to have established, and which is frequently accepted as secure by Washington, and suggesting that the Pakistan's growing Islamization constitutes an imminent nuclear danger.

    "Russia is aware that Pakistani authorities, with help from the US, have created a well-structured system of security for protecting nuclear facilities, which includes physical protection. However, there are 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs... there is no way to guarantee that all are 100% loyal and reliable," the cable. conveying the Russian view, reads

    "In addition to the Islamist interest in these facilities," the cable continues, "Russia also is aware that Pakistan has had to hire people to protect nuclear facilities that have especially strict religious beliefs, and recently the general educational and cultural levels in Pakistan has been falling. Due to these facts, extremist organizations have more opportunities to recruit people working in the nuclear and missile programs... Russia thinks Pakistan should also be a particular focus of discussion."

    Showing little trust in their much-touted ally, US officials offer a slightly different take in another cable, saying, "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in Government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon.

    A lengthy cable discussing Pakistan's opposition to the fissile material cut off treaty also notes the trauma inflicted on Islamabad by the US-India nuclear deal, which Pakistan believes has "unshackled" India's nuclear weapons program by freeing up domestic uranium to make more bombs, hence necessitating Pakistan stalling FMCT as it ramps up its arsenal.

    "Islamabad has chafed over the US-India 123 Agreement, arguing it also needs civilian nuclear power to meet energy demand; we have repeatedly advised the GOP that it should not expect a similar agreement because of AQ Khan's proliferation activities," notes another cable.


    Read more: 'Pak army no match for India's so we want more nukes' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...e-nukes/articleshow/7022922.cms#ixzz16rV7sgKP

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226567
     
  2.  
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Man what happened to the 1 pakistani equals 10 indians theory?
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Seriously though, nukes dont compensate for a powerful conventional force. Even the Chinese realize that and are modernizing their forces and keeping their nukes to a minimum as is India. They day Pak has to use its nukes against India, it would mean that they have got a severe walloping from India including cutting up of their country in a war which means they just lost the war.
     
  5. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    India
    They'll say anything to hang on to their nukes..next you'll hear the very same official claim that the might of the Pakistan army made India back off in 2008.
     
  6. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Pakistan plans to use Nukes to blackmail India in future. We should speed up our nuclear submarine program so that we have good second strike capability . Also we should concentrate on increasing yield of our bombs so that we don't need huge number of nukes to retaliate .
     
  7. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Shash you are wrong mate. We dont need to increase the yield of our nukes to megaton range or anything. What we have is good enough for pakistan. I think I have told this in nuke thread discussions many times. 50kt well directed nukes on water and sewage system will do enough damage. We dont need to blow any city into bits.

    Pak nuke blackmail is a bluff that needs to be called IMHO.
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    No again its their nukes that did the trick. The recent news reports are a testament to the fact. The IA wanted the govt to give full rights to go to full scale war if their limited strikes got a disproportionate response. The Govt back out.
     
  9. Vikramaditya

    Vikramaditya Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    Bangalore, India, India
    What nuke development and maintenance cost? Any idea guys..
     
  10. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    yusufbhai Nuclear bombs are only to be used as deterrance and once its used I am sure country resorting to use first will empty its entire arsenal. Same goes with Pakistan thats why they are trying to get as many as possible to create maximum damage to us . Since we will be only reacting to any nuclear attack so we need to have huge destructive power. I accept that even a small nuclear bomb will do enough damage due to its radiation effect but it will not destroy their military capabilities completely they may die but that death will not be quick and they may inflict some serious damage before they die. IMHO we need something which is at least half in power of Tsar Bomba . This is something they will fear and we can all openly say " 1 hindustani 100 pakistani ". May Be I am not correct but this is what I think should be our strategy. less the number of nuke less the cost of maintenance and security and result will be same.
     
  11. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Tsar Bomba yield is 50MT. The standard strategic warhead of US is 1MT, China about 250-500KT. Test yield of Indian nuke 45KT. How are we to jump to 25MT?? Shash it does not work that way mate. The super powers made huge bombs to compensate for their inaccurate missiles. With better guided missiles, we dont need huge bombs. Agni series has one of the best CEP in the world.

    If Pak uses nukes, it would mean it has lost a lot of territory. That means Indian army controls vast swathes of land in Pakistan. Are you going to nuke your own army? Think mate. The day Pak uses nukes it means India has broken pak up and also substantially degraded its army.
     
  12. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Agree with most of points specially about CEP affecting planned power of Bomb. But way our neighbor Pakistan threaten to use nuke for even slightest of provocation we cannot presume that Pakistan will use nukes only when their existence is threatened. They threatened us with nukes even in Kargil controversy where they were aggressor. We must form some strategy to counter Pakistani bluff of nuclear bombs. Honestly speaking I donot have much idea about that .
     
  13. Dark Sorrow

    Dark Sorrow Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Mumbai
    I prefer blowing entre enemy cities to dust. Damaging seweage or water system is more like a temperory soluation. Alternate sewage or water system can be built over the period of years if not immediate. Hence I prefer blowing entire city apart. In 1998 they claimd 200kt power nukes, the technology must have improved by now.
    As for the report I won't take it seriously as some chinese guy has shot of his mouth to justify increase pakistani nuke quantity. Chinese are known to go to any extent to help Pakistan against India.
     
  14. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India

    Don't be so sure friend. Remember the last time our army was headed to take Lahore, it was called back by force and told not to capture Lahore; something which we could have used as a second bargaining chip for POK other than 93.000 POWs. GOI is a coward and will stoop to any levels not to let IA capture foreign land to appease its "Rights nations" in the West. GOI is susceptible to external pressures very easily as we Indians don't really threaten the government's existence through asking questions and demanding our rights.

    Hence it is all the more likely that in an event of such a war, IA won't be allowed to capture land which means we will need at least 1 MT-3 MT of explosive capability for our nukes. This is of course unless IA gets fed up of GOI's regressive directives and refuses to listen.
     
  15. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,636
    Likes Received:
    11,706
    Pakistani army no match of Indian army that is why we want nukes...............(from China, we dont more chines nukes).........
     
  16. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    At last count Pakistan was estimated to have around 80-nukes which is actually more than what India has. I would have thought that 1-nuke for every major city in India would be enough but with 80-100 nukes i dont understand what they are going to target because thats more than all the Cities,Air-force,Navy and Civilian Airports we have and would leave no place in India untouched. An first strike would completely paralyze India and i doubt we could even have a second strike ability after that. Hence Subs and Aircraft Carriers loaded with nukes would be a good second strike platform but everything would be too late. We would be damaged beyond repair, i dont understand why they need more nukes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2010
  17. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    India
    My point exactly..what they say in public and in private is very different, but the underlying message is "We'll hang on to our nukes by hook or crook"
     
  18. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Everyone what Yusuf is saying is entirely right.Once you take out the sewers people will die more due to cholera because of contaminated water.Visit his earlier post regarding nukes and read them carefully it is frustrating to see you guys ask the same doubts again and again
     
  19. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Each country can make as many nukes as it wants

    Making nukes and storing them safely is an expensive job .

    Pakistan would soon start black mailing the world that " look some Nukes might land up in Iran or syria or saudi arabia if you dont support us"

    Pakistan fears that US would try to damage pakistani nuclear sites in the event of a looming Taliban takeover or even a takeover by a Rouge general
     
  20. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    6,565
    This idea of using nukes as a stalemate was started from the assistance by China, same concept used by China with their other proxy north korea.
     
  21. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    My very words Pankaj. With the rise of jihadi terrorism and the repeated failure for the superficial civilian government of Pakistan to control them any longer, Pakistan as a state knows that it is in its laws turn of tide, considering the current political norms meant for normal countries. This means that having the fear of being erased as a nation, Pakistani state at present is at its most paranoid self. Nuclear weapons from their all-weather friends for once since its inception has enabled Pakistanis to breath a sigh of relief that offers them an assurance that we will not invade anytime. To retain this rare golden glory, they will go to any extent to use this capability to blackmail the entire region.

    WikiLeaks exposed one good thing that US does share this Pakistani nuclear issue concern with us. Naturally US and particularly our government must start thinking of ways to strike at their nuclear facilities and disable their nukes from launching. More than conventional invasions, IAF doctrine should be to fly below Radar coverage and to bomb the nuclear missile facilities in such a way that the control mechanism of these missiles is destroyed, making them nothing more than radioactive rocks hidden underground wherever Pakistani military has hidden them. This is only possible through fast, heavily-planned pre-emptive strikes where we will have to draw the first blood going against our weakling-Gandhian principles that our Armed forces have been forced to adopt. Minimum deterrence is no long in question and to ensure that we are not struck by Pakistan in future and become another South Korea to this North Korea, we have to make sure that IAF is in a position to take out control systems of nukes, even if it means launching an attack on the PAK Army's GHQ.

    Preemptive strikes similar to Israelis is the only solution and for that, IAF needs 100% accurate satellite military-grade signals via GLONASS. I say this because if there is a declared form of war initiated by us, as a safety measure Pakistan will heavily militarize its nuclear sites either by storing radioactive material in dummy missiles all over the wrong area from their original place of storage or will engage in some sort of measures to protect them. Knowing their suicidal nature and narrow-spectrum of understanding, they will go to any extent to not let IAF or even USAF get hold of their nukes.

    Other than this I don't see any other reason.
     

Share This Page