Pak Nuke Arsenal Bigger, More Advanced Than India

[LETHALFORCE]

the report says only about nuclear deterrent or hell anything but doesn`t says about delivery system. except missiles and f-16 what other delivery system does pakistan has?:angry_10:. is it to deter india and force us on to negotiate with pakistan on kashmir:angry_1:

will the F-16 successfully enter Indian airspace??? Has it been modified to be able to deliver a nuke?? If yes has USA accepted alteration of the F-16 as a nuke delivery vehicle??

 

[neo29]

Some line from wiki about estimates of India's Nuke Arsenal

In 2005, it was estimated that India had between 40 and 50 warheads.[2]

In November 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that India has about 70 assembled nuclear warheads, with about 50 of them fully operational.[8]

A report by David Albright, published by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2000, estimated that India at end of 1999 had 310 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium, enough for 65 nuclear weapons. He also estimated that India had 4,200 kg of reactor grade plutonium which is enough to build 1,000 nuclear weapons.[3][9] By the end of 2004, he estimates India had 445 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for around 85 nuclear weapons considering 5 kg of plutonium required for each weapon.[10]

Former R&AW official J.K. Sinha, claimed that India is capable of producing 130 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium per year from six "unsafeguarded" reactors not included in the nuclear deal between India and the United States.


After this do we really believe that Pakistan arsenal bigger than ours. I dont think so.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Some line from wiki about estimates of India's Nuke Arsenal

In 2005, it was estimated that India had between 40 and 50 warheads.[2]

In November 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that India has about 70 assembled nuclear warheads, with about 50 of them fully operational.[8]

A report by David Albright, published by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2000, estimated that India at end of 1999 had 310 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium, enough for 65 nuclear weapons. He also estimated that India had 4,200 kg of reactor grade plutonium which is enough to build 1,000 nuclear weapons.[3][9] By the end of 2004, he estimates India had 445 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for around 85 nuclear weapons considering 5 kg of plutonium required for each weapon.[10]

Former R&AW official J.K. Sinha, claimed that India is capable of producing 130 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium per year from six "unsafeguarded" reactors not included in the nuclear deal between India and the United States.


After this do we really believe that Pakistan arsenal bigger than ours. I dont think so.

these numbers are wrong; here are some more accurate numbers from a Princeton University study

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/15_2_Glaser-Ramana.pdf

As part of the Indo-U.S. agreement, the Indian government has announced
a phased plan for putting a fraction of its current fleet of PHWRs under
safeguards. Accordingly, six additional 220 MWe reactors will be offered for
safeguards between 2010 and 2014.36 Until then, these reactors will produce
an additional 4,300 kg of reactor-grade plutonium, assuming they operate at
80% capacity factor. Those PHWRs that will be retained in the military part
of the nuclear complex will produce about 1,250 kilograms of unsafeguarded
reactor-grade plutonium per year.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

There are reports a Neutron Bomb was used in Iraq by USA.
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/neutron-bomb-0510/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread276940/pg1
http://searchwarp.com/swa150515.htm

Just tell me one thing that whether those tactical nukes as strong and disastrous as the one dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Just tell me one thing that whether those tactical nukes as strong and disastrous as the one dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If it is too powerful then the world will know about it. It was reportedly used near the battle at Baghdad airport and the military dug up soil upto 6 feet deep to get rid of any radioactive evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x571658

 

[Yatharth Singh]

If it is too powerful then the world will know about it. It was reportedly used near the battle at Baghdad airport and the military dug up soil upto 6 feet deep to get rid of any radioactive evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x571658

Thats the point. I said.

No one knows about any nation`s nuke arsenal. The numbers are just estimated to have been existed. No Government or army will show their complete arsenal for any weapon or anything else and not even the world`s biggest democracy(i.e. India). So just chill because nukes are just meant for counting as no country can currently dare to nuke any nation or organisation(not even Taliban) of the world.

Here, by nuking a country, I meant to use a nuke like the one used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which no country can dare to use currently thats it.

 

[neo29]

these numbers are wrong; here are some more accurate numbers from a Princeton University study

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/15_2_Glaser-Ramana.pdf

As part of the Indo-U.S. agreement, the Indian government has announced
a phased plan for putting a fraction of its current fleet of PHWRs under
safeguards. Accordingly, six additional 220 MWe reactors will be offered for
safeguards between 2010 and 2014.36 Until then, these reactors will produce
an additional 4,300 kg of reactor-grade plutonium, assuming they operate at
80% capacity factor. Those PHWRs that will be retained in the military part
of the nuclear complex will produce about 1,250 kilograms of unsafeguarded
reactor-grade plutonium per year.

Numbers may vary from reporting agencies but the core fact is India has much more nukes than known to us. This news of Pak having more nukes than India appeared in UK newspaper some months back and now in US. I see this as a ploy to actually find out speculative reports from Indian side as to how many nukes does India have.

 

[gogbot]

Just tell me one thing that whether those tactical nukes as strong and disastrous as the one dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Tactical nukes are small , as small as you can get them , right down to the 0.1kt to 10kt.

But regardless , you detonate a nuke , everyone knows about it, seismic sensors can detect even underground detonations of 0.1kt nukes, as they did with North Korea.

You detonate a nuke in Asia , then people wll know about it.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Numbers may vary from reporting agencies but the core fact is India has much more nukes than known to us. This news of Pak having more nukes than India appeared in UK newspaper some months back and now in US. I see this as a ploy to actually find out speculative reports from Indian side as to how many nukes does India have.

I agree, a better indicator is the fissile material which can be kept for future use rather than making bombs which sit and decay.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Tactical nukes are small , as small as you can get them , right down to the 0.1kt to 10kt.

But regardless , you detonate a nuke , everyone knows about it, seismic sensors can detect even underground detonations of 0.1kt nukes, as they did with North Korea.

You detonate a nuke in Asia , then people wll know about it.

But in my post I was not talking about tactical nukes but the weapons of mass destruction so need not to tell me the intensity of tactical nukes.

 

[Rebelkid]

This is pure Assumption and nothing else ...there is absolutely no way of knowing the number of nukes on both sides, i'd love to know how he came to such a conclusion.. and god forbid we don't have to use nukes.. One nuke is more than enough to destroy the environment around the blast radius for decades for couple 100 or even 1000 miles...

A nuke war is one way ticket for mankind

 

[gogbot]

India can make nukes with at least a 200kt yield per warhead.

Pakistan with its fission devices has far lower yields. It may have untested Fusion systems they have no data to even simulate further testing , but they are what they are untested, No military is going to sanction more untested warheads.

We however have the benefit of greater yields and greater miniaturisation.

in 1998 we conducted 5 tests primarily to prove our fussion technology People often forget the 4 other lower yield warheads detonated to test specific equipment.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This is pure Assumption and nothing else ...there is absolutely no way of knowing the number of nukes on both sides, i'd love to know how he came to such a conclusion.. and god forbid we don't have to use nukes.. One nuke is more than enough to destroy the environment around the blast radius for decades for couple 100 or even 1000 miles...

A nuke war is one way ticket for mankind

It is even crazier when both countries are neighbors and share a common water supply.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

This is pure Assumption and nothing else ...there is absolutely no way of knowing the number of nukes on both sides, i'd love to know how he came to such a conclusion.. and god forbid we don't have to use nukes.. One nuke is more than enough to destroy the environment around the blast radius for decades for couple 100 or even 1000 miles...

A nuke war is one way ticket for mankind

Thats what I am saying from my first post in this thread but these people need a topic for discussion so they just keep on increasing the matter. Nuke warhead count is just an estimated value and leaving tactical nukes no nation will be using the weapons for mass destruction against any other nation. Actually no nation can dare to do that otherwise that country must prepare itself for the results after that.

 

[Yusuf]

A tactical nuke is after all a nuke. There is no need for any tactical nukes in an indo pak scenario. It serves no purpose. But it sure will invite a strategic response from the other side.
LF, I don't think the US could have used a tactical nuke and got away from it.

 

[sayareakd]

just slightly off the topic

i failed to understand in all those years as to how 5 nukes were not been able to take out this mountain.

all of them failed to take out the mountain (that is one hell of strong mountain)

can some one please explain ???

 

[LETHALFORCE]

A tactical nuke is after all a nuke. There is no need for any tactical nukes in an indo pak scenario. It serves no purpose. But it sure will invite a strategic response from the other side.
LF, I don't think the US could have used a tactical nuke and got away from it.

(offtopic)
You may be right Yusuf but use of other agents like white phosphorus(chemical weapon labelled as an incidiary agent) possibly against civilians has been confirmed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

 

[Yusuf]

Though I could agree on actual warheads of pakistan being more than Indias, what also matters is the fissile material, india and pakistan have over the years resisted FMCT. India stole the advantage with the canadian reactor and went the plutonium route which gives better design and is also lighter. India has been amassing plutonium since the 70s where as AQ Walmart started keeping uranium enrichment in mind. They don't have as many reactors as india has. india cleverly went the FBR way and I am sure pakistan will not be able to match indias weapons grade material at any time. India may well look at a 2015 deadline to amass as much fissile material and then sign up the FMCT which will force pakistan too. Once that is done, we will count.

 

[neo29]

Though I could agree on actual warheads of pakistan being more than Indias, what also matters is the fissile material, india and pakistan have over the years resisted FMCT. India stole the advantage with the canadian reactor and went the plutonium route which gives better design and is also lighter. India has been amassing plutonium since the 70s where as AQ Walmart started keeping uranium enrichment in mind. They don't have as many reactors as india has. india cleverly went the FBR way and I am sure pakistan will not be able to match indias weapons grade material at any time. India may well look at a 2015 deadline to amass as much fissile material and then sign up the FMCT which will force pakistan too. Once that is done, we will count.

Very true .... Already reports in 2000 that India has enough reactor grade plutonium to make 1000 nukes. Not hard to assume how much fissile we may be having in current scenario. 2015 we may well have enough reactor grade and weapons grade plutonium to make 3000 nukes. By 2015 India can play international politics to make Pak sign FMCT.

Nice ploy.

 

[neo29]

Very old news ( 2006 ) but you can do the calculations after reading it on how many nukes we must be having.

India can make 50 nuclear warheads a year

A top former intelligence official has said India would have the capacity to make 50 nuclear warheads a year as it would be able to retain six reactors outside safeguards as envisaged under the India-US nuclear agreement.

"Under the deal, India shall retain six unsafeguarded reactors and have the capability to produce 50 nuclear warheads a year," Research and Analyses Wing former additional secretary J.K. Sinha said.

He said the assurance of nuclear fuel supply from the U.S. and the Nuclear Suppliers Group would free India's existing capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for its nuclear weapons programme.

In an article in the Indian Defence Review, Mr. Sinha said an estimate showed that "the exempted reactors would be able to produce 130 kg of weapon-grade plutonium per year. "

Maintaining there should be no doubt that India would continue to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, he said the entire Fast Breeder Reactor programme was out of the safeguards ambit.

"The potential of the FBR technology is huge for India's nuclear weapons programme and for power generation," Mr. Sinha said.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/19/stories/2006061904331200.htm