Pak Nukes

[rockey 71]

In 10 years, Pakistan will have largest N-stockpile after US and Russia: Report
-08-29-2015, 05:12 PM
NEW DELHI: In less than 10 years, Pakistan will have the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world, behind only the US and Russia, two prominent US think tanks said in a report.

According to the report, Pakistan is adding 20 warheads to its nuclear arsenal annually because of its fear of India which is also a nuclear power.

"In the coming years, the report states, Pakistan's advantage could grow dramatically because it has a large stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to quickly produce low-yield nuclear devices,'' said The Washington Post on the report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center.

File: Pak has more nukes than India

While India has large stockpiles of plutonium, essential for high-yield weapons, the report says that most of it is being used to produce domestic nuclear energy. It says Pakistan could have 350 warheads in the next 5-10 years, leaving UK and France behind.

Unlike India, Pakistan hasn't declared any no-first-use commitment and its leaders never shy away from reminding India that it is a nuclear power. Even after the recent cancellation of NSA level talks, Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz said nuclear power Pakistan knew how to defend itself.

"The growth path of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, enabled by existing infrastructure, goes well beyond the assurances of credible minimal deterrence provided by Pakistani officials and analysts after testing nuclear devices," the report states.

READ ALSO: Pakistan has nukes, India can't play the bully: Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz

Pakistan is estimated to already have 120 warheads as against India's 100. According to the Post, Pakistani military officials were not available to comment on the report when it was made available to journalists in the US on Wednesday.

Pakistan recently built its fourth reactor at Khushab military facility, a plutonium producing unit. Many believe that Pakistan is manufacturing low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons which, according to Indian experts, are meant to be used along the border in case of any skirmish with the Indian Army.

Pakistan is developing non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons to check the asymmetry with India in conventional capabilities, noted nuclear expert Hans M Kristensen had said in a report in 2012.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/48703876.cms

 

[blueblood]

Why the hell are you creating threads for Paki nukes every fortnight? There are plenty of running for the same.

@rockey 71

 

[jackprince]

@sob @pmaitra

Please merge it with existing bs thread.

 

[rockey 71]

WHITHER OUR ( INDIAN ) WAR PREPAREDNESS?
Thursday, 04 June 2015 | Pravin Sawhney

India has more of tanks, guns, aircraft and ships than Pakistan. But more assets don’t always translate into victory. Pakistan, at the strategic level, scores heavily over India in terms of war control, command and coordination
Given the acrimonious relations between India and Pakistan, and the regular accusations and counter-accusations by both sides, foreign analysts are wondering how the Modi Government will react to another Mumbai attack?
While the Defence and the Home Ministers have said that terrorists will be neutralised by terrorists, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has warned Pakistan, “You do another Mumbai and you will lose Balochistan.” Until Pakistan provides evidence of India’s covert activities in Pakistan, the Indian bluster cannot be taken seriously.
What has been taken seriously is the statement by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, considered close to the Prime Minister. In November 2014, he told NDTV, “Our conventional strength is far more than theirs (Pakistan). So if they persist with this (terrorism), they will feel the pain of their adventurism.”
The Indian Army with an over 12 lakh-strength is double that of the six lakh Pakistan Army, as is the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. India has more tanks, guns, aircraft and ships than Pakistan. The numbers disparity has been assessed by analysts as India having conventional war superiority over Pakistan. But, do more assets translate into victory in wars or is there something else which determines outcome of wars?
Before we understand how wars are fought and won, a quick review of events in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks (November 26-29, 2008) would help. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought the military option from the three service chiefs 72 hours after it was clear that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence was behind the attacks. The Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, favoured limited surgical strikes at targets (yet not established) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, suggested the capture of Fort Abbas in Indian Rajasthan facing Pakistan’s Punjab province about 10-15km inside Pakistan territory in a quick action by troops on ground. It was argued that the capture of Fort Abbas in Punjab (which has no military value) would show Pakistan’s Punjabi Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is poor light. Both the chiefs, however, made it clear that they lacked the wherewithal for war if Pakistan decided to escalate matters, adding that the Pakistan Army was unlikely to not retaliate. With this, the first and only war meeting ended.
With its economic progress in mind, India decided to exercise ‘strategic restraint.’ More to the point, India’s political and military leaders were unsure about the nuclear factor — politicians about its deterrence value and military chiefs about its credibility.
The chiefs were also worried about war preparedness including acquisitions, war wastage reserves (ammunition, stores and other war withal), operational logistics, training and mindset for a conventional war.
India’s conventional war-fighting capabilities today are worse than they were in 2008, and chinks in the armour have not been closed. As the outcome of a conventional war is decided by three levels — strategic, operational and tactical — let us see how each side would fare.
In Pakistan, the strategic level or the highest national forum for deciding war matters is the sole responsibility of the Army leadership. The Army and not the civilian leadership, determines and controls war objectives and timings. This gives it wider choices and options in planning and execution (hence retain surprise) at the operational level of war (campaign level which comprises various battles or tactical levels).
Next, the General Headquarters has total command over all five war departments, namely, Army, Air Force, Navy, Strategic Plans Divisions (dealing with nuclear weapons), and sub-conventional assets (terrorists under the ISI). On the one hand, this will help Pakistan wage a war on two battlefields (conventional and sub-conventional) simultaneously. On the other hand, there will be seamless integration of conventional and nuclear war levels to meet desired military objectives with each level being fully conversant with other’s doctrines.
As the coordination for war implying finances and arms purchases is also done by the Pakistan Army, this ensures necessary war stockings and regular sustenance of operational logistics during a war. Considering that bulk of Pakistan military’s machinery is of Chinese origin, uninterrupted supply of war material will not be a problem. Thus, Pakistan, at the strategic level, scores heavily over India in terms of war control, command and coordination.
At the operational level, where the war campaign is formulated, Pakistan’s military has three distinct advantages. Its foremost advantage of interoperability with the Chinese military is little understood in India. Both sides have commonality of equipment, are conversant with each other’s doctrines, mind-set and operational areas, and have been conducting advanced exercises (especially Armies and Air Forces) regularly since 2010 in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
This is not all. The laying of fibre optics-secure communications between Xinjiang and Rawalpindi; the development of the economic corridor across the Karakoram Highway which can be used for war sustenance; the acquisitions of Pakistani Raad and Babur cruise missiles with turbofan technology; and Pakistan becoming the first nation to share China’s secure BeiDou satellite system for military tracking, navigation and targeting — all point towards better interoperability than attained by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at the height of the Cold War!
The second advantage is Pakistan’s tactical nukes which it sought from China as answer to India’s Cold Start doctrine. These are referred to as operational level deterrence as distinct from strategic level deterrence and Pakistan has made it clear that command and control of these nukes will not be with field commanders but with Rawalpindi.
The use of these nukes is unlikely as Pakistan, given its internal lines of communication, has unmatched Army mobilisation capability than India, and since 2008, it has moved 25 per cent of its troops to forward locations to mitigate surprise.
Pakistan Army’s third advantage is its war preparedness. Unlike India, where the military operations directorate (and the Army Headquarters) spends more time monitoring counter-insurgency operations, Pakistan’s military directorate is committed to war preparation.
In India, the three services work in silos, as do the scientists who own nukes. According to the former Naval chief, Admiral DK Joshi, “India has services’ doctrines, but these lack credibility and weight because they do not represent a comprehensive view of national priority.” Regarding strategic level direction, the Admiral says, “The Defence Minister’s operational directive does not seem like a substantial document up to the task.”
On Indian Army’s unending zeal for counter-insurgency ops, which is directly responsible for its lack of war preparedness, inadequate war wastage reserves, and penchant for expansion rather than consolidation, the 1999 Kargil review committee report said, “Deployment in counter-terrorist operations disrupts the normal training programme of the Army and adversely impacts on its mind-set and state of readiness.” The report adds, “This tends to create an asymmetry vis-à-vis the Pakistani forces. The cross-border proxy was deliberately designed by Pakistan to offset the perceived overall conventional superiority of the Indian Army.”
Given the war advantages enjoyed by Pakistan at both the strategic and operational levels, India is left with numbers superiority at the tactical level. Unable to deter Pakistan with needed kinetic capability to fight and achieve desirable aims, Indian generals are content with refining tactical level (anti-infiltration) manoeuvres best left to junior leaders.
This is why India, despite a strong leadership, will find it difficult to give a befitting reply to another Mumbai attack.
(The writer, who is editor FORCE newsmagazine, can be reached at [email protected])

 

[rockey 71]

@sob @pmaitra

Please merge it with existing bs thread.

Mods,

Grateful rename the thread: "Not So Cold Indo-Pak War".

 

[Rowdy]

These Nukes are actually NaPak

 

[Sylex21]

Oh my Gods, reading these pro-Pakistani threads makes my head hurt. You can be as pro one nation as you like, but what you say should at least make logical sense objectively. I understand articles with a bias or twist but these points an absolutely absurd.

I mean part of my brain goes, "ok this is a forum on defense, these people have to have some idea of how things work in reality, this must be a troll." but then the other side wonders, "have these Pakistani's read so much propaganda that they have become really this stupid and unable to think critically?"

I feel like instead of replying to the content of these threads, we should teach the Pakistani's a course on common sense, logic and reason. This goes beyond nationalism. If some Indian guy said "oh well India's military is more powerful that China's in all ways because ____ (some stupid reason), while I might be pro India, I'd still have to think "well China has a much larger economy, more established defense production, more military hardware by a significant margin, so while I might love India, this cannot be logically true. But it seems like some Pakistani guy would come to the same situation and be like "hmm well I read in PakistanFLogicWeekly 1 Muslim soldier is worth 10,000 Hindu's so Pakisan's 600K soldier's are really 60 Billion!, therefore India is massively outnumbered."

 

[Neo]

Oh my Gods, reading these pro-Pakistani threads makes my head hurt. You can be as pro one nation as you like, but what you say should at least make logical sense objectively. I understand articles with a bias or twist but these points an absolutely absurd.

I mean part of my brain goes, "ok this is a forum on defense, these people have to have some idea of how things work in reality, this must be a troll." but then the other side wonders, "have these Pakistani's read so much propaganda that they have become really this stupid and unable to think critically?"

I feel like instead of replying to the content of these threads, we should teach the Pakistani's a course on common sense, logic and reason. This goes beyond nationalism. If some Indian guy said "oh well India's military is more powerful that China's in all ways because ____ (some stupid reason), while I might be pro India, I'd still have to think "well China has a much larger economy, more established defense production, more military hardware by a significant margin, so while I might love India, this cannot be logically true. But it seems like some Pakistani guy would come to the same situation and be like "hmm well I read in PakistanFLogicWeekly 1 Muslim soldier is worth 10,000 Hindu's so Pakisan's 600K soldier's are really 60 Billion!, therefore India is massively outnumbered."

What or who are you actually criticising?
The article is quoted from an Indian source and the thread is opened by a Bangladeshi.

 

[Blackwater]

What or who are you actually criticising?
The article is quoted from an Indian source and the thread is opened by a Bangladeshi.

And about Pakistan [emoji13][emoji13][emoji13][emoji13][emoji38][emoji38]

 

[Sylex21]

What or who are you actually criticising?
The article is quoted from an Indian source and the thread is opened by a Bangladeshi.

Sorry I didn't realize the source was Indian. Many conclusions in the article are absolutely absurd, alarmist, and come across as war mongering. My comments still apply to most Pakistani's and in most threads, as a trend overall, but you're right in that they don't apply in this instance.