Pakistan needs more nukes?

[King Solomon]

---

---

Then why Pakistan is developing long range missiles? 2,000km is enough to hit most significant targets in India.

How many nuclear bombs Pakistan needs to destroy India?

India has faraway bases - like in Nicobar islands.

Depends on the yield of the nukes. According to reports pak's nukes are of no more than 50kT. For that yield, it would require at least 2000 nukes to annihilate india completely - economically and militarily (FAS nuclear damage estimates).

Of course, the goal of pakistan should not be to "destroy" india but just maintain enough deterrence so that peace can be ensured.

[illusion8]

India has faraway bases - like in Nicobar islands.

Depends on the yield of the nukes. According to reports pak's nukes are of no more than 50kT. For that yield, it would require at least 2000 nukes to annihilate india economically and militarily (FAS nuclear damage estimates).

Of course, the goal of pakistan should not be to "destroy" india but just maintain enough deterrence so that peace can be ensured.

Out of curiosity can anyone shed some light on what is the approximate cost of making and maintaining 1 nuclear device at the present moment?

[BronzePlaque]

As far as i know, largest Pakistani nuclear bomb tested is 45kt..To maintain enough deterrence with such yield (45kt) Pakistan needs more than 100 imo..
There is a good simulation here..Take a look..
NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
I dont know if the results are precise but might give you an idea

[rai_kamal]

Pakistan wants to be a World Power and that is not possible without Nukes.

Except US,China,Russia and India no country can be a world power..
U can only improve yourself and nukes are definetly not going to help you..Even current situation is a big example of it..

I don't understand why pakistani saying they need 1000 nukes.. U r spending 2.5 billion $ on only 100 nukes, just guess the money required for maintenance of that large number. Even India is not planning any such step.

[ashokdeiva]

Pakistan wants to be a World Power and that is not possible without Nukes.

Good luck for your effort to become a world power,
But nukes are not going to help you in any way in acheiving that goal, with more nuks are you planning to black mail the rest of the world to award you the world power status?
besides the more the nukes, the more the risk you take in safegarding them from falling in the wrong hands, and if one falls and is triggered then think about the catastrophy that will bring to your country.

Rather going after the nukes, bring the change in your political and military organizations as well as in the people to work for the country and not against the national interest in the name of sects and jihad

[alimobin memon]

Except US,China,Russia and India no country can be a world power..
U can only improve yourself and nukes are definetly not going to help you..Even current situation is a big example of it..

I don't understand why pakistani saying they need 1000 nukes.. U r spending 2.5 billion $ on only 100 nukes, just guess the money required for maintenance of that large number. Even India is not planning any such step.

India can never be a world power even the defence budget of britain, spain , saudi arabia more than indians check the defence systems of these countries.

[King Solomon]

Out of curiosity can anyone shed some light on what is the approximate cost of making and maintaining 1 nuclear device at the present moment?

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers10%5Cpaper963.html

Cost Of Nuclear Weapons | The cost of nuclear security - Los Angeles Times

http://www.cnduk.org/about/item/download/13

[Peaceful Civlian]

We don't need more nukes.And Pakistan is not enemy of Israel and we never had war.
Even in this economic crisis, this is very hard to believe that Pakistan is making more nuke.

[King Solomon]

Pakistan wants to be a World Power and that is not possible without Nukes.

Nuclear weapons alone cannot make pakistan a world power. It is economic development and scientific progress that elevates nations to world power status.

I am not saying that nukes are not necessary. In the context of pakistan they are surely a deterrent and security measure. But nukes, even if you have 1000 of them, cannot make you a world power without an indigenous industrial base. eg. India has almost the same nukes as pakistan but is a world power, while pakistan is not atm.

[Ranasikander]

Except US,China,Russia and India no country can be a world power..

Your ultimate verdict regarding super power countries is interesting and entertaining at the same time.

I don't understand why pakistani saying they need 1000 nukes..

Who told you that Pakistan needs 1000 Nukes and that we are stockpiling fissile material for 1000 nukes.

U r spending 2.5 billion $ on only 100 nukes,

Pakistan's spending on military nuclear program are very much lower than what you have mentioned above.

[illusion8]

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers10%5Cpaper963.html

Cost Of Nuclear Weapons | The cost of nuclear security - Los Angeles Times

http://www.cnduk.org/about/item/download/13

whoops a 115 billion pounds for maintaining 225 nukes...thats huge.

[haviZsultan]

We Pakistanis need a larger stockpile of nukes because there is a 3:1 military ratio and indian army is clearly the better side. We can defend but usually suffer more losses.

Pakistan states that it may use nukes in the case of any type of conventional war so it isn't just a deterrent against nuclear attack its also supposed to be a deterrent from conventional attack by India. Theres more to this than meets the eye. Pakistan is seeking a larger arsenal because India is a larger country and a larger amount of nuclear attacks are needed to obliterate it compared to Pakistan.

Again lots to it.

[vsdoc]

I personally think pakistan would be better off developing tactical nukes. 100 strategic nukes are technically enough as a deterrence. But more tactical nukes are needed to match india in battlefield.

I dont understand this bro.

You want Pakistan to claw back conventional parity via tac nukes?

India is very clear. We do not make the differentiation between a tactical strike versus a strategic one.

Nor do we make the differentiation between civilian Indian nuclear casualties and military ones.

Or Indian soil, or foreign, or our own waters or international waters.

A nuclear strike, a nuclear launch, will bring retaliation.

And it will not be measured or pro-rated per the decision of the enemy.

[illusion8]

We Pakistanis need a larger stockpile of nukes because there is a 3:1 military ratio and indian army is clearly the better side. We can defend but usually suffer more losses.

Pakistan states that it may use nukes in the case of any type of conventional war so it isn't just a deterrent against nuclear attack its also supposed to be a deterrent from conventional attack by India. Theres more to this than meets the eye. Pakistan is seeking a larger arsenal because India is a larger country and a larger amount of nuclear attacks are needed to obliterate it compared to Pakistan.

Again lots to it.

In reality the obliteration of India at the hands of Pakistan is out of question - You will be long gone before you even target 10% of Indian territory - The hypothetical question here is how many nukes does Pakistan require? If hypothetically speaking the objective is to totally obliterate India then as S-19 says you might need 2000 nukes to do that.

[SHAMK9]

---

---

No, period