Nuclear Threat From Pakistan : Boom or Bluff ?

[Gagan]

wrt Gen Deepak Kapoor's statement a few months back, that the pakistanis have added to their N arsenal and are rapidly producing new warheads. He said that they are going way beyond deterrence.

Have the pakistanis just produced their first Plutonium N bomb? If they have, this would be missile deliverable.

[ramana]

X-posted for archival purposes and continuity...

"archan"

Sorry if this has been posted. This article from New Yorker is really interesting and recommended read to all
.......
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ntPage=all

......

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... z0kXPW6NsQ
[/quote]


The two RAW people have it right. The real threat to India is the Wahabized faction of TSPA seizing power and control of the nukes. The mullas don't have any real clout any a Sunni state. Its only in modern Shia states that the ulema have any say.

[Brad Goodman]

wrt Gen Deepak Kapoor's statement a few months back, that the pakistanis have added to their N arsenal and are rapidly producing new warheads. He said that they are going way beyond deterrence.

Have the pakistanis just produced their first Plutonium N bomb? If they have, this would be missile deliverable.

I have a question on this one? If the only thing that was limiting India to harness nuclear energy (civilian & military) was lack of yellow cake Uranium. How come porkies do not have the same problem? who is supplying them?

[Gerard]

I have a question on this one? If the only thing that was limiting India to harness nuclear energy (civilian & military) was lack of yellow cake Uranium. How come porkies do not have the same problem? who is supplying them?

While China is known to have supplied Pakistan with both HEU and Pu in the past, Pakistan has its own Uranium deposits and mines.
Pakistan does not have much of a civilian nuclear infrastructure. There is enough Uranium ore in Pakistan for its nuclear programme.

[ramana]

X-Post...

"jrjrao"

Bruce Reidel writes on the Brookings Blog today:

Nuclear Security In Pakistan—What to Worry About
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/ ... urity.aspx

Pakistan, the country with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world, knows it has a nuclear weapons security problem...

Ironically, the greatest threat to Pakistan’s nuclear security comes from the one part of the Frankenstein Pakistan is not fighting, the terror group Lashkar e Tayyiba that attacked the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008 just after Barack Obama’s election victory. In the months since, Mumbai LeT has continued to flourish in Pakistan. What makes it so dangerous is that, unlike the mostly Pashtun Taliban, it recruits its followers in the Punjab, the same place where the Pakistani army recruits its officer corps. As one senior Pakistani general once told me, the relationship between the army and the LeT is a family affair. That gives the LeT the possibility of access to the arsenal through insider connections that other terror groups lack.

LeT demonstrated at Mumbai that its goal is mass casualty terror. Detonating a stolen nuclear device planted in an India city would be a triumph for the groups’ goal of terrorizing India like no other attack. If it provoked war between India and Pakistan, that’s all the better in the twisted logic of LeT.

The Mumbai attack also showed the LeT has bought the argument of al Qaeda that the Islamic world’s enemies are a conspiracy of Crusaders, Zionists and Hindus, all of whom were targeted in November 2008. Last month an American, David Headley, pleaded guilty to the charge that he scouted the targets for LeT in Mumbai over the course of five visits to the city between 2005 and 2008. He also revealed that LeT and al Qaeda were closely cooperating on a plan to attack Copenhagen Denmark last fall.

Pakistan has taken serious measures to protect the crown jewels of its national security but it lives in a perilous time. If there is a nightmare nuclear security scenario in Pakistan today it is probably an inside the family job that ends up in a nuclear Armageddon in India. When President Obama meets again with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani at the nuclear summit in Washington (they met once before during the 2008 campaign) he should press for Pakistan to break up the LeT for good even if it disrupts family harmony.

This wrong analysis. The greatest threat is the jihadi faction of the TSPA seizing power by force or normally thru promotion.

After nuke detonation in an Indian society what willbe left of TSP that Reidel things is an incentive for LeT to do such an act?

Most likely a Headley type double agent will induce that attack. Its part of the strategy that a US official told Hersh in the old 1993 New yorker article.

For those who dont know one of the US generals was suggesting in a pow-wow to deal with TSP threats to attack New Delhi as to why not suggest taking out BARC in Mumbai. The New Yorker back issues should have that.

At the Nuclear Edge

“And one of our guys”—a senior military man who had served as defense attaché with the United States Embassy in New Delhi—“said we ought to focus on getting the Paks to hit Tarapur, not Delhi.” A large reactor at Tarapur, north of Bombay, was known to be one of India’s main sites for the chemical extraction of weapons-grade plutonium. “In other words, he wanted to do a tit for tat: Kahuta for Tarapur. It was the old limited-war issue: If they do a strike, what could we do to get them to neutralize each other?”

SOURCE

[Gerard]

Have the pakistanis just produced their first Plutonium N bomb? If they have, this would be missile deliverable.

The Pakistani Uranium bomb is also missile deliverable. This was no Hiroshima type gun design. It was a Chinese designed implosion type missile warhead.

Recall what was recovered from Libya by the US and IAEA

The documents appear to have been information that Pakistan had received in China in the early 1980s. They include detailed, dated, handwritten notes in English taken during lectures given by Chinese weapons experts who were named by the notetakers. These notetakers appear to have been working for Khan, based on their cryptic notations deriding a rival Pakistani nuclear weapons program led by Munir Khan, the chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Organization. The design appears to be for a Chinese warhead that was tested on a missile, has a mass of about 500 kilograms, and measures less than a meter in diameter.

[Karna_A]

This wrong analysis. The greatest threat is the jihadi faction of the TSPA seizing power by force or normally thru promotion.

After nuke detonation in an Indian society what willbe left of TSP that Reidel things is an incentive for LeT to do such an act?

Most likely a Headley type double agent will induce that attack. Its part of the strategy that a US official told Hersh in the old 1993 New yorker article.

Tit for Tat with TSP will not deter TSPA. The only way to deter TSPA is to threaten that an all out attack on India would mean nooking of Waahhaby Islam all over the world with replacement of Barelvi's as the custodians of Arabia and elsewhere. The ideological center has to pay the price for it's children. That's the policy of Israel and US and makes sense for India too.

[Y. Kanan]

In an all-out nuclear war, we'd be hard-pressed to even anhillate Pakistan, much less Saudi Arabia or anyone else. In all likelihood, an "all-out" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would result in 50-100 nuclear ballistic missiles hitting India within minutes, taking out all our airbases, major cites, and other high-value targets. Tens of millions of Indians would be killed outright. Since our nuclear deterrent is almost entirely aircraft-based, our immediate response would limited in comparison. At best, we might have a handful of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, which we'd launch at Pakistan's major cities, killing perhaps 1-2 million people.

But our main response would have to wait, as our major airbases would have all been hit in the first minutes of the holocaust. We'd have to assemble surviving strike aircraft (many of which would have been previously dispersed to hidden or hardened locations away from the main airfields) and pair them with their nuclear weapons. Of course, you can't just launch a lone bomber into Pakistan and hope for the best; we'd have to assemble a strike package for each sortie. You'd need fighter escorts and other support aircraft, probably tankers as well (since we'd likely have to launch our sorties from distant bases in southern & eastern India). Putting all these sorties together would take time (many hours before we'd even get our first strike package launched, and many days to deliver bombs to all the major Pak targets).

In reality, these Indian nuclear airstrikes would probably never even happen, because the US would have intervened and declared a "no-fly zone" over Pakistan within 6-12 hours of the first nukes going off. At that point, any IAF planes would likely be shot down before reaching their targets; and of course the US would deny having shot down our aircraft, and frankly we'd have a hard time knowing ourselves, as it would be impossible to verify the USAF F-22's flying around and besides, the PAF has plenty of AIM-120s of their own. Operating blind and confused, after losing more aircraft with no result our surviving leadership would probably give in to all the external pressure and declare a cease-fire. Better to preserve our surviving nuclear deterrent and reorganize our shattered forces - who knows what the Chinese would be doing by this time and our own devastated population would also be in chaos by this point. The govt would quickly forget about anhillating Pakistan and instead concentrate on our own survival.

I can see why the Pakis are so eager to have a nuclear war with us; they'd come off far better than we would.

[svinayak]

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... z0kXPW6NsQ
The two RAW people have it right. The real threat to India is the Wahabized faction of TSPA seizing power and control of the nukes. The mullas don't have any real clout any a Sunni state. Its only in modern Shia states that the ulema have any say.

Atleast one thing the article has got it right

America’s dealings with Pakistan may be increasing the risk of radicalization.
US policy makers were looking at outside Pakistan such as Afg and India and focusing there that they had a blind side on the internal chaos inside the Pakistan society.

[Gagan]

So the pakistanis do have the CHIC-4 design N bums.

The diagram on the blackboard behind A Q 'Xerox' Khan was clearly of a Uranium Implosion design.

Two things:
1. Uranium purification: Am I correct in assuming that pakistan's centrifuge program can't generate weapons grade uranium, and that the enriched uranium they have generated is HEU and is 'weapons usable' but not 'weapons grade'

2. Number of warheads:
This from the 1993 New Yorker article by Seymour M. Hersh:

The American intelligence community, also operating in secret, had concluded by late May that Pakistan had put together at least six and perhaps as many as ten nuclear weapons, and a number of senior analysts were convinced that some of those warheads had been deployed on Pakistan’s American-made F-16 fighter planes.

This from 2004 saag article by Hari Sud:

American Command Control technology and security codes are already in place to safeguard the Pakistani 40 odd nuclear weapons. Washington now will demand complete integration of US and Pakistani forces structure. Next step will be to jointly guard the nuclear weapons on Pakistani soil. Finally, total control of the nuclear weapons by America, even though they stay in Pakistan.

3. What is the status of Pakistan's centrifuge program? Has it been locked up by the americans?

4. The new developments in pakistan seem to suggest a feverish attempt to attain plutonium extraction capability by the opening of the second Plutonium seperation plant at Khushab. All these three reactors there have been built with chinese assistance and are clearly meant for Pakistan's N weapons program.

Any evaluation of their status in 2010?

[Gerard]

Am I correct in assuming that pakistan's centrifuge program can't generate weapons grade uranium

Even their first generation P1 centrifuges could make weapons grade U, despite breakdowns, frequent parts replacement etc.

[Gagan]

Where did the american story of 'Terrorists' exploding a radiation warhead in a city come from?

Are they referring to the bums with Pakistan's N command?

Or are they referring to fissile material that Al Quaida terrorists are alleged to have obtained.

One thing is certain, if a N bum / radiation warhead goes off somewhere, the designers would be from Pakistan's N bum program. And these guys would have received such training from the west and the chinese.

[Rahul M]

this CRS report is one of the recent ones, from 2010 that says between 60-90 warheads. also mentions that the strategic programme has faced a 35% funding cut. (from 'the news')
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34248.pdf

kanan sahab, not all those warheads are earmarked for missile delivery, around 50% would be earmarked for aircraft delivery due to concerns with the accuracy of the BM's, none of which in the paki arsenal are particularly accurate. (I take the pakistani reports of 20-50 m CEP with a large bag of salt.) this is especially true of the longer ranged NoKo derived ones, whose CEP are expected to be >2km.
it's only the shorter ranged ones that can boast better CEP, but again, not enough to serve as counter force weapons, as you envisaged. the threat to our airfields are overrated.
you are also seriously underestimating our BM arsenal,our deterrence is not primarily aircraft based.

lastly, we also have a reasonably capable surveillance system to track those systems. being caught off-guard is unreasonable.

[Gerard]

Since our nuclear deterrent is almost entirely aircraft-based

You've been reading too much stuff by the non-proliferation ayatollahs. They've been repeating the same piffle, almost word for word, for the past 15 years.

[ramana]

Latest Time Magazine as prelude tot eh nuke security conf in DC has this

[This article consists of an illustration. Please see hardcopy of magazine.]

Estimated total nuclear inventory*

RUSSIA 12,000

U.S. 9,400

FRANCE 300

CHINA 240

U.K. 185

PAKISTAN 70-90

ISRAEL 80

INDIA 60-80

NORTH KOREA 0-10

*For many countries, the exact number of nuclear weapons is unknown or unverifiable; these numbers are the international community's best guess

SOURCE: THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0klaEQopO

[kittoo]

I am seeing this figure of 60-80 Indian warheads since almost six years while Pakistan's arsenal has grown from 40-50 to 70-90 (some even suggesting 140!!!). I find it a little hard to believe that India hasnt added a single warhead in past half a decade.
But then again, stranger things have happened in our system.

[Karna_A]

In an all-out nuclear war, we'd be hard-pressed to even anhillate Pakistan, much less Saudi Arabia or anyone else. In all likelihood, an "all-out" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would result in 50-100 nuclear ballistic missiles hitting India within minutes, taking out all our airbases, major cites, and other high-value targets. Tens of millions of Indians would be killed outright. Since our nuclear deterrent is almost entirely aircraft-based, our immediate response would limited in comparison. At best, we might have a handful of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, which we'd launch at Pakistan's major cities, killing perhaps 1-2 million people.

I can see why the Pakis are so eager to have a nuclear war with us; they'd come off far better than we would.

Kanan,

What you have summarized is good and is probably the scary nook 26/11 scenario where India was found totally inadequate. Also in 1990 Americans saw a number of things that TSPA was doing like dry runs for nooks, truck caravans but none whatsoever about India.
The only mention that there is in historical records is when Indian AF chief asks to be shown what a Nook looks like! There is no historical account that Indian AF did any dry runs during the 1990 crisis. Of course things have improved since then but question is, are they enough or will India face a nook 26/11?
The only way forward is to have 4-5 Nook subs and 200+ Agni deployed in Andamans and then it will be possible to take on all of Waahabis. Unfortunately, it may not happen before 2020 at least.

[shiv]

In an all-out nuclear war, we'd be hard-pressed to even anhillate Pakistan, much less Saudi Arabia or anyone else. In all likelihood, an "all-out" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would result in 50-100 nuclear ballistic missiles hitting India within minutes, taking out all our airbases, major cites, and other high-value targets. Tens of millions of Indians would be killed outright. Since our nuclear deterrent is almost entirely aircraft-based, our immediate response would limited in comparison. At best, we might have a handful of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, which we'd launch at Pakistan's major cities, killing perhaps 1-2 million people.

But our main response would have to wait, as our major airbases would have all been hit in the first minutes of the holocaust. We'd have to assemble surviving strike aircraft (many of which would have been previously dispersed to hidden or hardened locations away from the main airfields) and pair them with their nuclear weapons. Of course, you can't just launch a lone bomber into Pakistan and hope for the best; we'd have to assemble a strike package for each sortie. You'd need fighter escorts and other support aircraft, probably tankers as well (since we'd likely have to launch our sorties from distant bases in southern & eastern India). Putting all these sorties together would take time (many hours before we'd even get our first strike package launched, and many days to deliver bombs to all the major Pak targets).

In reality, these Indian nuclear airstrikes would probably never even happen, because the US would have intervened and declared a "no-fly zone" over Pakistan within 6-12 hours of the first nukes going off. At that point, any IAF planes would likely be shot down before reaching their targets; and of course the US would deny having shot down our aircraft, and frankly we'd have a hard time knowing ourselves, as it would be impossible to verify the USAF F-22's flying around and besides, the PAF has plenty of AIM-120s of their own. Operating blind and confused, after losing more aircraft with no result our surviving leadership would probably give in to all the external pressure and declare a cease-fire. Better to preserve our surviving nuclear deterrent and reorganize our shattered forces - who knows what the Chinese would be doing by this time and our own devastated population would also be in chaos by this point. The govt would quickly forget about anhillating Pakistan and instead concentrate on our own survival.

I can see why the Pakis are so eager to have a nuclear war with us; they'd come off far better than we would.

Sorry to quote the whole post. It is excellent and nothng can be left out. The scenario is well known to Indian planners. Only a few people were out of the loop and they protested recently (Santhanam etc) This explains why India has not made more than 60 warheads. They are of no use to India. It is clear that India does not need nuclear weapons. Especially the 4 kt fizzles we have.

[chaanakya]

The scenario pointed out by Kannan is scary enough to beat the hell out of any Indian planner. But it is based on few assumptions.

1. PK launches a surprise attack.
2. India is really caught unaware. means , we have no input to find out about missile launch., either preparatory stage or actual launch phase.
3. We have no knowledge of their command and control and can't do much about it.
4. During flight phase, we can't do much to intercept it.
5. PK does have so many missiles with nuke which could be launched at India with impunity.
6. Cold start doctrine is nothing but hot air.

Some pointers to these

1.There is no surprise attack as PK is being watched closely.India's sat capability is now almost RT vis a vis PK and CN
2.Indigenous interceptors are being developed
3. Desi GPS is being readied. A lesson learnt from failure of a missile test due to switching off GPS signal.
4. During initial phase of war, response through cold start would be calibrated to avoid nukes but PK will be on radar for any such thoughts.
5. The launch by India will occur within minutes. As and when war is announced Missiles would be kept ready and mated. So in near simultaneous strike on each other , PK is likely to cease to exist as a nation. So no more american no fly zones. Mind you Americans are in PK as well as in India so equation is neutral on account of their presence in respective territory.
6.Cold start doctrine says that AF will have to destroy their air strike capability and ensure near dominance of air space. Recent purchase initiative points to filling of this gap.

However , in my humble opinion, all out nuclear war may not happen but TSP/AQ may seize few nukes and try to do with US or may be India. That is the possibility one needs to seriously look at.

If at all PK will be made to look aggressor and India might hold some territory before ceasefire and US will be shit scared of Nukes since when PK is anihilated , remaining nukes are certain to go into hands of AQ/TSP to be transported to ..... So

[Karna_A]

Kanan has indeed painted a scary but possible scenario: Possible because some of the TSPA brass are not unlike the Mumbai terrorists in their mentality.

1.There is no surprise attack as PK is being watched closely.India's sat capability is now almost RT vis a vis PK and CN
With Tunnels and underground Missile silos even RT will give less than 10 minutes of warning as all preparations will be underground.

2.Indigenous interceptors are being developed
Interceptors are not easy, and so far no one has succeeded in those.

3. Desi GPS is being readied. A lesson learnt from failure of a missile test due to switching off GPS signal.
4. During initial phase of war, response through cold start would be calibrated to avoid nukes but PK will be on radar for any such thoughts.
The Strike Corps will be devastated by first strike. Only AF and Navy would need to do the needful.

5. The launch by India will occur within minutes. As and when war is announced Missiles would be kept ready and mated. So in near simultaneous strike on each other , PK is likely to cease to exist as a nation. So no more american no fly zones. Mind you Americans are in PK as well as in India so equation is neutral on account of their presence in respective territory.
TSP is not a fool to announce War and then launch. It may be in response to Indian attack on POK terror camps.

6.Cold start doctrine says that AF will have to destroy their air strike capability and ensure near dominance of air space. Recent purchase initiative points to filling of this gap.
IAF can easily tackle their PAF, but not their BMs. At least not yet.

The only way to avoid it is to have nook proof underground silos in Andaman Islands and also few Nook submaries in Persian Gulf carrying TNWs so Indian attack happens from East as well as West. Even one Ohio class type would be enough to make the whole persian gulf into Venus like surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

[chaanakya]

Kanan has indeed painted a scary but possible scenario: Possible because some of the TSPA brass are not unlike the Mumbai terrorists in their mentality.

1.There is no surprise attack as PK is being watched closely.India's sat capability is now almost RT vis a vis PK and CN
With Tunnels and underground Missile silos even RT will give less than 10 minutes of warning as all preparations will be underground.

2.Indigenous interceptors are being developed
Interceptors are not easy, and so far no one has succeeded in those.

3. Desi GPS is being readied. A lesson learnt from failure of a missile test due to switching off GPS signal.
4. During initial phase of war, response through cold start would be calibrated to avoid nukes but PK will be on radar for any such thoughts.
The Strike Corps will be devastated by first strike. Only AF and Navy would need to do the needful.

5. The launch by India will occur within minutes. As and when war is announced Missiles would be kept ready and mated. So in near simultaneous strike on each other , PK is likely to cease to exist as a nation. So no more american no fly zones. Mind you Americans are in PK as well as in India so equation is neutral on account of their presence in respective territory.
TSP is not a fool to announce War and then launch. It may be in response to Indian attack on POK terror camps.

6.Cold start doctrine says that AF will have to destroy their air strike capability and ensure near dominance of air space. Recent purchase initiative points to filling of this gap.
IAF can easily tackle their PAF, but not their BMs. At least not yet.

The only way to avoid it is to have nook proof underground silos in Andaman Islands and also few Nook submaries in Persian Gulf carrying TNWs so Indian attack happens from East as well as West. Even one Ohio class type would be enough to make the whole persian gulf into Venus like surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

What is the use of all this if major part of population and strike capability is , hypothetically speaking, destroyed leaving no second strike capability. Just to provide shelter to defeated leadership.

I don't understand when people talk about taking strong action against pakistan, a sort of military action post 26/11, when
pakistan can easily nook us and We don't have any capability to pre-empt such strike even. Paper tigers, are we ?

Planners would have to take all scenario into account and keep on working to plug holes in the armour. I think Indian planners , with cold start doctrine, have assessed that limited strike against pk is not going to elicit nuclear response due to the cost benefit factor. Kargil to some extent proved this. PK was proven to be aggressor and restrained from going to any escalation in conflict despite fierce response. Next conflict with them would happen where PK would be demonstrated aggressor, be it another ( or another..) mumbai like attack or kargil like mis-adventure. India on its own would not do whatever jingoistic ferver may ask of it, unless of course USA has clear and active support for it, which is unlikely.

As for surprise, I think most of the armed forces are aware of this and must be alert. But any strike would have some lead elements and readiness level. War at nuclear scale do not develop overnight.Even 10 minutes notice would be enough to launch major strike before nooks land here. This is possible because of solid fuel short range missiles ( stated range 300-700 km). Perhaps you may be aware that these are highly mobile and most nook ready solutions for any misadventure.( these are not deployed in A&N but in Border areas and their T3 is less than 10 minutes)

However, all planners plan for how to prevent nook response and only a fraction of effort goes into actual military readiness, most of the time it is diplomatic and political maneuvering, smokescreen and mirrors, which goes into nook containment.If they are eager to have nuclear war, then they must be projected as nuclear renegade and treated as outlaw. Obama's concern over nook falling into AQ hand is only to be accentuated.

However , I have limited knowledge about these things so , let more knowledgeable members enlighten us, if necessary. As ordinary citizen, one certainly feel vulnerable.

[shiv]

Nuclear bombs kill a lot of people. But not enough people. You will need 20,000 bombs to to serious damage. OK 5000 bombs is bad provided you can kill 100,000 a pop.

To destroy Mumbai totally Hamid Gul will need about 25 bombs. One will put it out of action for a while. To get Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad . Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Guwahati - and kill most people there you will need about 150 bombs.

Patna. here I come.

150 bombs will do a lot of damage - mostly irreparable in the medium term, but killing 200 million? You will have to kill 1.3 million per bomb for that. Now where is the evidence that such numbers are possible?

Killing 200 million Indians? That should give the remaining 900 million a bit more leeway to do things innovatively no?

[kittoo]

Sorry to quote the whole post. It is excellent and nothng can be left out. The scenario is well known to Indian planners. Only a few people were out of the loop and they protested recently (Santhanam etc) This explains why India has not made more than 60 warheads. They are of no use to India. It is clear that India does not need nuclear weapons. Especially the 4 kt fizzles we have.

I am really sorry if I am being stupid here, but I read all posts and dont understand one thing. Why do we dont need more nuclear weapons? I mean, if we had 150 rather than 60, wouldnt that increase our chances of annihilating (and hence a bigger deterrence also) Pakistan if it strikes? I understand that Kannan said that India's response would be aircraft based and most of our airfields etc will be wiped, but what about mobile launchers? I find it really hard to believe that even after knowing this (if BRFites can guess it, surely the armed forces can do), still most of our capability is aircraft based! And it the rationale behind this is that whats the use when we have lost most of our assets anyway, I dont know what to say then!
Once again, pardon me if I did not understand the whole discussion properly.
Edit: Also, I dont think even 300 bombs can absolutely wipe out all our assets and big cities.

[shiv]

I am really sorry if I am being stupid here, but I read all posts and dont understand one thing. Why do we dont need more nuclear weapons? I mean, if we had 150 rather than 60, wouldnt that increase our chances

Sorry kittoo. I was being sarcastic. this topic has been the subject of intense and emotional discussion leading to flamewars and acrimony. On page 2 or 3 of this forum is a thread called "deterrence". if you feel like it have a read through some posts there.

If not we can do timepass here onlee..

In theory if we have 25 bums and Pakistan makes 50, we make 100, they make 200, we make 400, they make 800, we make 1600, they make 3200 etc we find that we are going down the route that the US and Russia went.

Now we all know that America is the greatest nation on earth. And we know that America won the cold war. And we know that America built some 30,000 warheads. therefore nobody can argue that it is wrong to build 30,000 warheads because nobody can argue that it is wrong to be like America. Who does not want to be like America?

So yes we must build more and more and more warheads.

Now assume that one warhead needs 5 kg Plutonium (Pu). So for 20,000 warheads we need 100,000 kg Pu. Where will that come from? How much Pu do we have?

For Uranium bums like Pakistan has - you need about 20 kg per bomb - that means 400,000 kg for 20,000 bombs. Now if you read the arguments posted in this thread, Pakistan should have no difficulty in getting 400,000 kg Uranium because both China and the US who want to keep India down will give it to them.

So clearly in a nuclear arms race we will lose. We will be USSR. Pakistan will be like America.

So better not to have bombs no?

[arun]

X Posted. Excerpt dealing with the security of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon stockpile from a study by Matthew Bunn of Harvard University’s Belfer Centre titled “Securing the Bomb 2010”.

Matthew Bunn rightly identifies the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the most likely source for a JDAM and for those not familiar with BR lingo, no that acronym does not stand for Joint Direct Attack Munition but rather stands for Jihadi Directed Atomic Munition:

Securing the Bomb 2010 : Securing All Nuclear Materials in Four Years

MATTHEW BUNN
PROJECT ON MANAGING THE ATOM
BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

COMMISSIONED BY THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE

April 2010 ……………………….

Pakistan

Pakistan’s modest nuclear stockpile arouses global concern because Pakistan is also the world headquarters of al Qaeda; its stockpile faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth. Despite extensive security measures, there is a very real possibility that sympathetic insiders might carry out or assist in a nuclear theft, or that a sophisticated outsider attack (possibly with insider help) could overwhelm the defenses. Over the longer term, there is at least a possibility of Islamic extremists seizing power, or of a collapse of the Pakistani state making nuclear weapons vulnerable—though present evidence suggests both of these scenarios remain unlikely.

Pakistan is believed to have an arsenal of some 70-90 nuclear weapons, stored at several sites.11 It also has HEU and plutonium production and processing facilities (including weapons-component fabrication facilities) and a small research reactor where a small amount of U.S.-origin HEU is located, all of which must be protected against nuclear theft. Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is growing, as it continues to produce HEU, it announced the startup of a plutonium production reactor at Khushab in 1998, and it has two more plutonium production reactors under construction.

Extensive Security Measures

In the last decade, Pakistan has taken major steps to improve security and command and control for its nuclear stockpiles.13 While Islamabad maintains a veil of secrecy over the specifics of its nuclear security arrangements, its stockpiles are thought to be under heavy guard, protected by a 1,000-man armed security force overseen by a two-star general, which is part of the larger 8-10,000-person Strategic Plans Division that manages Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.14 Personnel participating in the nuclear program are subject to extensive screening, in a program reported to be comparable to the U.S. Personnel Reliability Program.15 Pakistani nuclear weapons are believed to be stored in disassembled form, with the components stored in separate buildings, so that thefts from more than one building would be required to get the complete set of components for a nuclear weapon.16 Pakistani officials also report that locks to prevent unauthorized use are incorporated into Pakistani weapons, though it is not known how these would be incorporated in weapons that are stored in disassembled form, or how difficult the Pakistani lock designs would be to bypass.17 In a crisis in which Pakistan sought to disperse its nuclear weapons to ensure their survival and prepare for their possible use, the controls that help prevent unauthorized use in peacetime might be seriously weakened.18 The United States has cooperated with Pakistan to further strengthen nuclear security, as Pakistan has acknowledged, and Obama administration officials have sought to broaden and deepen this effort, but specifics concerning what steps have been implemented, are still underway, or are still being discussed remain classified.19

While Pakistani generals share the U.S. concern over extremist threats to their nuclear stockpiles, their first concern is protecting these stocks from Indian strikes—or American seizure. The latter fear is stoked by repeated U.S. press speculation about planning for such possibilities.20 Hence, Pakistan has not permitted U.S. experts to visit its nuclear sites, or even disclosed where they are.

Though the U.S. and Pakistani governments describe themselves as allies, anti-American feeling and suspicion of U.S. motives is widespread in Pakistan, particularly on nuclear issues (as the United States long opposed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, and is still suspected of trying to undermine it). These suspicions can sometimes undermine cooperation in sensitive nuclear areas, and are only inflamed by detailed public discussions in the United States of possible actions to improve Pakistani nuclear security.

Extraordinary Insider and Outsider Threats

While Pakistani security measures are extensive, they must provide protection against extraordinary threats, from both insider infiltration and outsider attack. In the global black-market network led by Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan, insiders within Pakistan’s program demonstrated both a willingness to sell nuclear weapons technology around the globe and an ability to remove major items from Pakistan’s nuclear material production facilities and ship them abroad. As discussed earlier, other senior Pakistani nuclear scientists led a “charity” that reportedly offered to help al Qaeda (and Libya) with nuclear weapons.21 Pakistan also suffers pervasive and deeply ingrained corruption, which can create opportunities for insider recruitment.22 Insiders among the elite group guarding then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf cooperated with al Qaeda in two assassination attempts that came within a hair’s breadth of succeeding. If the military personnel guarding the President cannot be trusted, how much confidence can the world have in the military personnel guarding the nuclear weapons?

Sophisticated outsider attacks involving scores or even hundreds of armed extremists are also a serious possibility. A January 2009 attack on a base for the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the Mohmand district near the Afghan border, for example, reportedly involved hundreds of attackers armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.23

There have been terrorist attacks targeting nuclear facilities in Pakistan, including attacks on or near the Sargodha air base and the Wah cantonment, both sites where nuclear weapons are believed to be stored or handled.24 These attacks, however, were typically simple car bombings that never breached the perimeter security of the facilities, having little to do with the tactics that would be needed to steal a nuclear weapon or nuclear material. Indeed, these attacks may have the effect of reducing the risk of nuclear theft, as mass murder of military and nuclear personnel (or their children, in the case of one attack) presumably will make it more difficult for the extremists to recruit military and nuclear personnel to their cause.

The 2009 attack on Pakistani Army headquarters was more worrisome (though it also may have had the effect of making military personnel less likely to support the extremists). The attackers, wearing Pakistani army uniforms, penetrated the site and seized dozens of hostages, apparently with detailed knowledge of the layout of the site. A Pakistani elite unit defeated the attackers and rescued most of the hostages, after several hours.25 With the right tactics and enough firepower, a similar attack—a terrorist assault on a heavily guarded facility, involving sophisticated planning, the use of deception (including, by some accounts, not just the uniforms but forged identifications), attackers willing and eager to sacrifice their lives, and probably insider knowledge of the security arrangements—would pose a serious threat to a nuclear weapons or nuclear materials site.

Ultimately, no nuclear security system can protect against an unlimited threat. Hence, reducing the risk of nuclear theft in Pakistan must include both steps to further improve nuclear security measures and steps to reduce extremists’ ability to challenge the Pakistani state, to recruit nuclear insiders, and to mount large outsider attacks. Fortunately, the Pakistani government, with support from the United States and other countries, is moving on both fronts, seeking to wage both a military/intelligence battle and a “hearts and minds” campaign against violent extremists in Pakistan (though as of early 2010, the Pakistani military was declining to take on those elements of the Taliban located in North Waziristan). The extremists’ ability to mount attacks throughout the country, and to acquire inside information on security arrangements at sites they are considering attacking, remain troubling, however.

Finally, it is important to understand the limits of the policy tool of improving nuclear security. The more extreme scenarios in Pakistan would not be addressed by any plausible nuclear security system. If the Pakistani state collapsed, or Taliban linked jihadists seized power, or hundreds of well-armed and well-trained jihadists attacked a nuclear site all at once, or senior generals decided to provide nuclear assistance to jihadis, better nuclear security systems would not solve the problem. However large or small these risks may be, other policy tools will be needed to address them.

Read it all ( 2MB Download ) :

Securing the Bomb 2010

[chaanakya]

Nuclear bombs kill a lot of people. But not enough people. You will need 20,000 bombs to to serious damage. OK 5000 bombs is bad provided you can kill 100,000 a pop.

To destroy Mumbai totally Hamid Gul will need about 25 bombs. One will put it out of action for a while. To get Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad . Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Guwahati - and kill most people there you will need about 150 bombs.

Patna. here I come.

150 bombs will do a lot of damage - mostly irreparable in the medium term, but killing 200 million? You will have to kill 1.3 million per bomb for that. Now where is the evidence that such numbers are possible?

Killing 200 million Indians? That should give the remaining 900 million a bit more leeway to do things innovatively no?

Sorry to intrude here

No evidence at all And that sends kannan's theory to sixes.

1 nook = 1.3 million approx
population of PK
169 Million= 124 nooks needed only 64 more needed, if not already there. Not too difficult. Where would be Pk after this.
Remaining population=000

Population of India

1,139 Million= 879 nooks needed. Not at all achievable by PK

PK has reportedly 100 nooks
130 Million Gone Balance 1000 + million Indians remain It would set India back to the level of 2000, still a too large population of poverty stricken hungry illiterate people . It may not matter to us if we are in the other lot. Survived, we have a large score to settle.

If IN has 60 nooks then 78 million Pk gone and 91 million remaining.

PKs nuclear deterrent is clearly not enough and not going to work if its a matter of expandable population play.

[ShauryaT]

Sorry to quote the whole post. It is excellent and nothng can be left out. The scenario is well known to Indian planners. Only a few people were out of the loop and they protested recently (Santhanam etc) This explains why India has not made more than 60 warheads. They are of no use to India. It is clear that India does not need nuclear weapons. Especially the 4 kt fizzles we have.

Without any comment on Kannan's scenario, you just had to bring Santhanam into your sarcasm?

[Karna_A]

I am really sorry if I am being stupid here, but I read all posts and dont understand one thing. Why do we dont need more nuclear weapons? Edit: Also, I dont think even 300 bombs can absolutely wipe out all our assets and big cities.

India definately needs more bombs. But that number 60 is just a misnomer.
What should be counted as a Bomb is open to interpretation. Is it the fully assembled or is it the capability?
What is important is how much fissile material is there to make bombs and India easily has 10 times the 60 number.
With ready fissile material it takes less than 2 hours to make one.

Also in 1990s it was true that most bombs were for aircraft delivery. Not any more.
Larger number is needed to deter not only TSP, but other TSP friends, so that it is well known that if India goes down, it will also take down any country that has attacked India in last 2000 years, so the TSP friends help TSP to their own peril.

India is as much bigger in every way than TSP as China is from Vietnam, or US is from Cuba.
So Indian-TSP equal-equal is as much a fallacy as China/Vietnam US/Cuba would be.

[ramana]

X-Post by Shyamd...
Five Indians injured by dirty bomb material in Delhi market

DEBKAfile Special Report April 12, 2010, 3:27 PM (GMT+02:00)



Cobalt-60 is used in radiotherapy for treating cancer and welding steel. A US report last year recommended monitoring this material along with Caesium-137, Strontium-90 and Plutonium to effectively counter nuclear terrorism. Unlike a nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb does not involve nuclear fission and can be used like a conventional weapon.

Ahead of the Washington conference, US president Barack Obama called nuclear terror "the single biggest threat to US security, short term, medium and long-term."

The day before the conference, the Indian prime minister met Obama and tackled him about Pakistan's inaction against Muslim terrorists and exhorted him to jointly combat terror emanating from Pakistan as the most dangerous source of potential nuclear terror. According to debkafile's military and intelligence sources, the Indian and US leaders failed to agree on whether Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was sufficiently secure. Indian leaders as well as their military and intelligence advisers have repeatedly warned Washington that al Qaeda and Taliban were moving in on Pakistan's nuclear facilities through their deep penetration of Pakistan's intelligence service and may soon be in position to take over.

In his previous conversations with Obama, Singh reported that Israeli intelligence shared India's assessment of the Pakistani nuclear hazard.

.....

I think the big gap is the US thinks AlQ, L-e-T etc are different than the TSPA which is just the uniformed extension of those terrorist oganizations.

The real concern is the jihadi faction will take over after Kiyani who is last batch before Gen Zia's ISlamization of TSP Army academy at Kakul.

Read this with the "Mehran- man" article posted earlier.

[Karna_A]

In theory if we have 25 bums and Pakistan makes 50, we make 100, they make 200, we make 400, they make 800, we make 1600, they make 3200 etc we find that we are going down the route that the US and Russia went.

So better not to have bombs no?

Shiv,

That's a rational logic but cannot be applied to irrational players. I don't accept that.
Going by that logic, India should stop buying tanks, planes etc. also as each purchase has a reaction by TSP!

What TSP is trying to get is sufficient numbers to annihilate India and they are singularly focussed on that.
What India is supposed to do is to get sufficient numbers to annihilate not only TSP but also all potential future threats.
The past is guide to future, so all past aggresors will need to pay the price.
While diplomacy and intention should focus on peace, the military and capability should focus on Indian Samson option.
The second strike capability of annihilating all of Asia will surely guarantee peace.
Just India=TSP will never guarantee anything, as TSP has nothing to save.
TSP is slowly becoming an Arabian desert but without the Oil/Gas of Arabia, too poor to stand on its own feet, can only lick what others throw its way.

It has thinking and ambition of a Mughal King, but money only of a Mughal Chowkidar.

[Y. Kanan]

The #'s of warheads are not as important as the delivery systems. Whether we have 60 warheads or 150 is of no consequence if the only way we can deliver them is by plane.

If we had just 20 usable warheads on submarines at sea or mobile launchers on the ground, that would be enough. All that's needed is a credible "second strike" capability - enough warheads on hidden mobile platforms to guarantee mass destruction for the enemy within minutes of his own attack. The 2nd strike arsenal doesn't have to be big enough to completely wipe out your enemy; it just needs to be potent enough to wreck all his major centers of gravity.

This is where we're lacking at present.

[Karna_A]

The #'s of warheads are not as important as the delivery systems. Whether we have 60 warheads or 150 is of no consequence if the only way we can deliver them is by plane.

If we had just 20 usable warheads on submarines at sea or mobile launchers on the ground, that would be enough. All that's needed is a credible "second strike" capability - enough warheads on hidden mobile platforms to guarantee mass destruction for the enemy within minutes of his own attack. The 2nd strike arsenal doesn't have to be big enough to completely wipe out your enemy; it just needs to be potent enough to wreck all his major centers of gravity.

This is where we're lacking at present.

That's wrong information that India can only deliver by planes. Even during Kargil war 4 Prithvi and 1 Agni were nook armed and kept ready as deterrence. Today its a lot different and only better.
20 nukes are too less to deter mad junta for MAD.(Mutually Assured Destruction) The mad TSPA thinking is that TSP is just one Islamic country out of 50+ whereas India is the one of only 2 Hindu countries so its Ok for TSP=India MAD for Islamic future. However, if India has capability and willingness to take down rest of Asia also, its a whole different ball game.
Israel has that willingness and capability with 300+ TNW. A nook attack by Hamas or Hizbullah would mean most of Asia unlivable for 1000 years. If Israel can have that many TNW without a single test, why can't India? As per PPP, Indian Nuclear research budget is way greater than that of Israel. Indian scientists may be a lot less paid than Israeli, but they are in no way less smarter.

[shiv]

That's a rational logic but cannot be applied to irrational players. I don't accept that.
Going by that logic, India should stop buying tanks, planes etc. also as each purchase has a reaction by TSP!

Karna there are two separate factors here

One is the subject that we want to talk about - i.e. the actions of rational (or irrational) players
The second is the tools and methods we employ to discuss the subject we want to talk about - rational (or irrational) logic.

The discussion becomes completely meaningless if you apply irrational logic. And you have yourself pointed out how the "rational logic" I have used is unacceptable. But my logic is hardly rational. It is totally irrational. Every time I enter into any discussion of this subject I find that people fill up the unknowns, the gaps in the information they have with constructs that suit their particular argument. This method of reasoning is useful because you can reach a conclusion first and then build up your arguments to support that conclusion.

All that I did in building up a "rational argument" was to decide beforehand that India is going to lose or that India has lost anyway. Once that conclusion was clear in my mind it was easy to build up (and cook up) rational arguments (like China and US are going to give Pakistan 400,000 kg of Uranium).

It is possible to play this game in the opposite way. It is possible to arrive at a mental conclusion that India is going to win, or that India has already won, and then build up arguments to suit that conclusion. You will find on this forum that such a conclusion has more opponents and more people ready to tear that argument down than an argument that favors the idea that India has lost anyway.

The point I am trying to make is that the "pre-existing mental state" of a group of people has a bearing on what they think and what conclusion they can agree with. The interesting part is that Pakistanis, over the decades have built up such a positive mental state about themselves that a whole host of serious, high profile Pakistanis actually make statements that are difficult to believe and make us laugh. But in making 10,000 positive statements about Pakistan you find that a percentage of Indians start believing a percentage of the bluff.

On this forum and among Indians in general I find a deep sense of negativity and hurt pride and suppressed anger at India not being openly recognised as one of the big boys of the world. That negativity too gets absorbed by people who are exposed to it and they find it easier and easier to accept faulty conclusions or premises like "Pakistan will get 400,000 kg of Uranium"

As far as I can see regarding this topic, it is incredibly complex because it necessarily involves people's feelings and fears and there are a large number of unknowns. Each assumption abut an unknown leads to two or more different conclusions and each of those conclusions pans out into two or more different situations. Fear and feelings are intrinsic to this subject.

Nuclear weapons can only deter if someone is afraid of being nuked. A person will have confidence in his nuclear weapons if:
1) He knows they will work
2) He is sure his side will use them
3) He knows for sure that the other guy is scared of nukes.

Now if you start with a scenario where an Indian says
1) Our nukes don't work
2) Even if the work Indian leaders will not use them
3) Pakistanis are not afraid of nukes. They are irrational

Then this person thinks about Pakistan
4) Pakistani nukes will work because they are tested designs that the Chinese stole from America
5) Pakistanis will use them as they threaten
6) He is himself afraid of being nuked because he is rational

When you start a discussion with these 6 preconceived ideas, the conclusion is that India has lost even before any discussion starts. So why not get that conclusion out of the way? India has lost. India has no chance of winning, fighting or surviving nuclear war given the six widely accepted preconditions I have highlighted in red.

After getting that out of the way start changing each one of the 6 preconceived notions to see what conclusions we get until we end up with 6 exactly opposite conclusions. I will mention them even if they are disliked more than the earlier six

1) Indian nukes work
2) India will use them
3) we can be irrational
4) Pakistani nukes don't work
5) The will not use them
6) They are afraid of our nukes. We are not afraid.

[Prem]

The nuke war wont be /cant be restricted to regional theatre , per nature it has huge strategic , geopolitical, international ,intercontinenatl ramifications. Pukes ears will be pulled at the very first sign of being naughty.it is crazy to belive that a nation of billion plus will go down without taking another couple of billions along with them . It might sound crazy but the belivers of One life will loose this mental tussle of complete anihlation game with the knowers of millions rebirth taking dharmics.Remember , our ancestors paid visit to all kind of enemies even residing in so called Paradise/s and served the justice with sword. So where are they gonna hide ?
Paki bluff has been called in past and will be called again and they know it . In the meantime keep Chai Biscoti by the tons to serve Paki Pittas protecting Pakikapoots.Indian hammer grows by the day.

[ramana]

Nightwatch for 4/13/2010 has this on TSP arsenal. Note the PRC modus operandi!

Pakistan: The outrage and protests over renaming Northwest Frontier Province have prompted a movement by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz to revisit this issue.

Regarding nuclear security, Prime Minister Gilani's assurance that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure was echoed by US leaders at the nuclear security summit. The weapons components are no more secure than the people who guard them, based on the Chinese model of keeping essential components in separate locations.

{Wow so the PRC is in same status as India:demated weapons. So it means they are in defacto NFU as they dont have launch on warning. They need to assemble in run up of crisis. As internal tensions increase in PRC it could lead to security concerns in the PLA also. India should start dialog with PRC on security of nukes regardless of what the west thinks.}[/url]

The key question is not about the system of storage, but the quality of the system of vetting the guard personnel. Every major terrorist attack in Rawalpindi and all the terrorist attacks against Musharraf when he was in office involved insiders who terrorists who had infiltrated the security details.
Did Gilani provide any assurances about the quality of personnel vetting of the guard force?

[muraliravi]

One question for guru log here.

I know I am not going to get answers to this question "Do the pakis really have nukes and does GOI know that they dont have if thats the case?". Rudradev has given his answer on page 1 of this thread. But let me frame my question differently. The last references to pakis having lost its nukes were the following 2

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html

Thats the detailed paper by Narayanan.

The other paper is references by him: Subrahmanyam, K., “Has US Seized Pak N-arms?” Time News Network, May 25, 2002

Now my question: These articles date back at least 7-8 years. Do we have from (any news article or source) any (even an psy-op) about the same issue but something more recent . "Have the pakis lost their weapons, if they ever had them in the 1st place". Even something 4-5 years old or more recent. The reason I am asking is "did they lose it and did they get it back, why was that line of reasoning not pursued after 2002, was it just a hoax by some indian analysts or did something happen after that, or do all indian strategists know it, but dont mention it". Again I know no one has conclusive proof or even analysis, but any news items at least??

[Karna_A]

After getting that out of the way start changing each one of the 6 preconceived notions to see what conclusions we get until we end up with 6 exactly opposite conclusions. I will mention them even if they are disliked more than the earlier six

1) Indian nukes work
2) India will use them
3) we can be irrational
4) Pakistani nukes don't work
5) The will not use them
6) They are afraid of our nukes. We are not afraid.

It's a well thought and lucid argument. However it has only shades of black and white and no grey areas.
The reality is closer to below:

1) Indian nukes work: Sure, they worked in 1974 when they were designed on IBM historic relic monsters, and not todays' super computers.
2) India will use them: Sure, India is known to get stronger and more united when faced with a external threat.
3) we can be irrational: Unsure, this is doubtful in present leadership. Irrational would mean not only taking out TSP but also whereever TSP ideology breeds. But then it's also possible that the surviving Indian leadership would be more like Bose than Gandhi.
4) Pakistani nukes don't work: Wrong, they do work even if they are copied. Anyone who thinks otherwise, reminds me of a Masters in Industrial Engineering from US guy who tried to convince me that US used many nookes on Iraq.
5) They will not use them: Wrong, They will use them as long as they are convinced that in their overall twisted calculation they win.
6) They are afraid of our nukes. We are not afraid: Both are afraid of each other's nukes.
However, as you pointed out, India is virtually indestructible. Even 10K nukes can only reduce population by 5-10 years.

Based on the above, as long as India maintains a second strike capability that can not only take out TSP but all TSP like breeding grounds, the chances of nook war are minimized. What that would require is anywhere between 1K-2K TNWs, a tall order presently but achievable since Israel has almost half of that with less PPP research budget.
And then India can move towards being richest country in world by 2050, either way.

[shiv]

It's a well thought and lucid argument. However it has only shades of black and white and no grey areas.
The reality is closer to below:

Sir I am sure your thoughts have truth in them. As long as no one claims that what he writes is the only truth I am happy to accept any view as a reflection of reality. There are too many shades of grey from unknowns for anyone to write the last word on the issue. That is all that I am trying to say.

[Prem]

[6) They are afraid of our nukes. We are not afraid: Both are afraid of each other's nukes.
However, as you pointed out, India is virtually indestructible. Even 10K nukes can only reduce population by 5-10 years.
Based on the above, as long as India maintains a second strike capability that can not only take out TSP but all TSP like breeding grounds, the chances of nook war are minimized. What that would require is anywhere between 1K-2K TNWs, a tall order presently but achievable since Israel has almost half of that with less PPP research budget.
And then India can move towards being richest country in world by 2050, either way.

In have been beating this drum for the last 10 years. Sahasar 2 Brahmastars provide enough felxibilty and freedom to fix most of our security issues and inject right sense of friendship in antagonistic forces. This pretty much lay down the foundation of India Friendly doctrine for neighborhood , near as well abroad. There wont be peep beyond limit when we go on pusnihing the dusht dushmans.

[shiv]

Now my question: These articles date back at least 7-8 years. Do we have from (any news article or source) any (even an psy-op) about the same issue but something more recent . "Have the pakis lost their weapons, if they ever had them in the 1st place". Even something 4-5 years old or more recent. The reason I am asking is "did they lose it and did they get it back, why was that line of reasoning not pursued after 2002, was it just a hoax by some indian analysts or did something happen after that, or do all indian strategists know it, but dont mention it". Again I know no one has conclusive proof or even analysis, but any news items at least??

I can only post my own take on this.

Whatever Pakistan did in 1998 - it produced a squiggle on a seismograph that was calculated by one informed forum member to be at least 50% in strength of the Indian squiggle earlier that month. So whatever India set off - Pakistan also managed to set off an explosion that was detectable. If we decide that India's tests yielded x kilotons, then Pakistan test/s yielded at least x/2 kilotons.

They certainly had access to a big bomb that can do damage comparable to a Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Reports that have appeared since then (and discussed on BR) include the news that China provided Pakistan with enough enriched Uranium to make at least two bombs apart from giving them partially enriched Uranium to make a further 6 bombs or so.

Some reports suggested that Pakistan's bums had US style PAL (security) to prevent misuse and it was speculated that the US would control them. But US sources have themselves pointed out that they may not have accounted for all the bombs.

All in all it would be an unsafe assumption to make that Pakistan has no nukes or that they are under the control of an unreliable entity like the US or China. From the Indian viewpoint the US and China are as unreliable as guarantors of Indian security as Al Qaeda. The only advantage to India of Al Qaeda with bombs is that for a given number of Paki bombs - some of them will be reserved for use against the US as well - instead of being aimed at India onlee.

As for the number of bombs Pakistan has - I don't think anyone knows exactly and I have no reason to disbelieve any of the reports including reports that they have more bombs than India. As I see it, throughout history nations and armies have either hidden or exaggerated the real numbers of key weapons to achieve some sort of subterfuge. There are some advantages in working with the assumption that Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India. So if you see those reports - better believe them