• Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices
    95 replies, posted
[release] [IMG]http://images.geo.tv/updates_pics/11-30-2011_27634_l.jpg[/IMG] ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s nuclear programme has made some extraordinary progress by developing one of the world’s smartest nuclear tactical devices, it has been learnt.According to a western diplomat, the former dictator and the then President General Pervez Musharraf, during one of his meetings with US officials, had deemed it proper to convey it to the Americans what Pakistan possessed and how the country’s nuclear scientists had secured the defence of Pakistan.The diplomatic source said that New Delhi also knows what Pakistan has produced and what is really unmatched. The Indians got this source said and believed that Musharraf intentionally conveyed this to the Americans so that the country is not treated by the US like Afghanistan and Iraq Pakistan is neither a signatory to NPT nor CTBT, however, it has unilaterally decided to use its nuclear programme only as deterrence against any foreign aggression.After becoming the target of the Western capitals particularly Washington, which have been unleashing all sorts of propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear programme, Islamabad has developed one of the most credible and foolproof command and control systems for its nuclear programme. The US authorities have acknowledged the credibility and security of Pakistan’s nukes.Wikipedia quotes a Washington-based science think tank as saying that Pakistan is increasing its capacity to produce plutonium at its Khushab nuclear facility. The website said that the estimated Pakistani nuclear weapons was probably in the neighbourhood of more than 200 by the end of 2009.It, however, adds that the actual size of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is hard for experts to gauge owing to the extreme secrecy, which surrounds the programme. Pakistan’s nuclear programme was started by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto while the country conducted its nuclear test on May 28, 1998 during Nawaz Sharif’s tenure.[/release] [URL]http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=27634[/URL]
Oh boy...
What exactly does this mean for our foreign policy?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33533318]What exactly does this mean for our foreign policy?[/QUOTE] Liberation
Well, I guess it's better than having dumb nukes... Interesting that Pakistan genuinely seems to fear being the subject of an American "liberation", like some of their neighbors. Apparently India isn't the only foreign aggression they're trying to be prepared for. At least the prospect of a Navy task force being turned to vapor means we probably won't be trying to "help" Pakistan any time soon.
Uhh, congrats? The rest of the world has recognized that tactical nuclear weapons are useless. The yield doesn't matter. The instant you use a nuke, you are getting hit by a barrage of nukes. STRATEGIC nuclear weapons. The United States spent billions researching various uses during the cold war. Everything from suitcase nukes, to a nuclear mortar, to (my favorite) a nuclear air to air rocket. They are all gone now. (Bombers were still the primary method of delivering nukes. Air to air missiles hadn't really been perfected, and cannons were still the preferred method of taking out aircraft. On a large scale however, this would be nearly impossible. Sooooo the logical conclusion was to focus on making the world's biggest flak shell and then mounting it on a rocket. Bear bombers coming across the pacific? launch a barrage of nuclear rockets with timed detonation and wipe them out completely. Accuracy not necessary. Brilliant with a side of utter insanity.) Strategic nuclear weapons, or nothing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533679]Uhh, congrats? The rest of the world has recognized that tactical nuclear weapons are useless. The yield doesn't matter. The instant you use a nuke, you are getting hit by a barrage of nukes. STRATEGIC nuclear weapons. The United States spent billions researching various uses during the cold war. Everything from suitcase nukes, to a nuclear mortar, to (my favorite) a nuclear air to air rocket. They are all gone now. (Bombers were still the primary method of delivering nukes. Air to air missiles hadn't really been perfected, and cannons were still the preferred method of taking out aircraft. On a large scale however, this would be nearly impossible. Sooooo the logical conclusion was to focus on making the world's biggest flak shell and then mounting it on a rocket. Bear bombers coming across the pacific? launch a barrage of nuclear rockets with timed detonation and wipe them out completely. Accuracy not necessary. Brilliant with a side of utter insanity.)[/QUOTE] I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533702]I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.[/QUOTE] Nukes are very dangerous to PEOPLE. The world? It doesn't give a fuck. We could detonate every nuke humanity has ever produced in China and folks in Canada likely wouldn't even notice. Hell, Japan might not see anything other than a smoke plume.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533738]Nukes are very dangerous to PEOPLE. The world? It doesn't give a fuck. We could detonate every nuke humanity has ever produced in China and folks in Canada likely wouldn't even notice. Hell, Japan might not see anything other than a smoke plume.[/QUOTE] I'm sure they'll notice when everyone gets irradiated and dies
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533702]I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.[/QUOTE] lol nah. bad for your health doesn't come into it when nukes are flying. shits already going down with millions dying so i doubt anyone would be so considerate when they could use every weapon they have. why be worried about the after-effects of nuclear fallout when people are dying right now? [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Clementine;33533763]I'm sure they'll notice when everyone gets irradiated and dies[/QUOTE] a bit of radiation poisoning that you can prepare for a few years down the track or a faster end to a nuclear war. tough choice, isn't it.
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533702]I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand the concept of war.
Aren't all nukes strategic
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533702]I disagree with you on one thing, being that if a country nukes someone else, they will get attacked with nukes, that is simply untrue. If a country nuked someone else, they would be retaliated against very harshly, but more likely with gigantic bombs instead of nukes, because nukes are extremely dangerous to global health and everyone knows that.[/QUOTE] Let me quote my previous rant on nukes and how "tactical" nukes are fucking retarded [quote][QUOTE=Biggins;33532487]Tactical nukes are only used in fiction.[/QUOTE] Ironically they are quite worthless tactically. As airbursting a Tac. Nuke would be fucking retarded, You get the same amount of demolition from a MOAB Fuel-Air or carpet-bombing an area with no fallout(both political and radioactive.) or being seen by every fucking motherfucker ever. Most ICBMs are airburst anyway, in order to maximize the blast zone/emp radius/fallout "blanket" coverage, Detonating it on-ground reduces said coverage and overall damage radius while incinerating everything directly in the blast zone to Extra-Crispy mode. Overall nuclear weapons are ineffective nowadays and are only a deterrent, considering that carpet-bombing an area would be more cost and manpower effective than nuking the fuck out of an area. Plus it would reduce the political controversy by a massive degree. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] This is not to say however that nukes still won't cause untold damage if used wildly, Or to say that nukes are even a good weapon, morally, All i am saying is if you really need to cause such goddamn damage, there are better and easier ways to do it than dropping an ICBM on someone's ass and ruin the area for years to come.[/quote] Have you ever heard of the Dead Hand? It was a system the Soviets supposedly(or actually did i don't recall.) had in place that enabled them to nuke the U.S. regardless of the state of the kremlin after a nuclear assault. Overall the entire CONCEPT of nukes is that, If both sides have nukes, Neither will nuke the other out of fear of recieving the same lightning they gave. TL;DR: Tactical Nukes are shit for anything except destroying land which you can get with non-radioactive weaponry, And MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION IS A REAL THING IT IS WHAT THE COLD WAR WAS BASED AROUND. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ignhelper;33533841]Aren't all nukes strategic[/QUOTE] Not really, Strategic refers to nukes with a high destructive capability and a wide radioactive material radius. Tactical refers to high destructive yet low radioactive material is dispersed from the "Tac-Nuke".
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33533775]I don't think you understand the concept of war.[/QUOTE] The concept of war is to destroy your enemy, not destroy everyone.
Only a matter of time until Pakistan has one stolen by some terrorist organization
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533679]Uhh, congrats? The rest of the world has recognized that tactical nuclear weapons are useless. The yield doesn't matter. The instant you use a nuke, you are getting hit by a barrage of nukes. STRATEGIC nuclear weapons. The United States spent billions researching various uses during the cold war. Everything from suitcase nukes, to a nuclear mortar, to (my favorite) a nuclear air to air rocket. They are all gone now. (Bombers were still the primary method of delivering nukes. Air to air missiles hadn't really been perfected, and cannons were still the preferred method of taking out aircraft. On a large scale however, this would be nearly impossible. Sooooo the logical conclusion was to focus on making the world's biggest flak shell and then mounting it on a rocket. Bear bombers coming across the pacific? launch a barrage of nuclear rockets with timed detonation and wipe them out completely. Accuracy not necessary. Brilliant with a side of utter insanity.) Strategic nuclear weapons, or nothing.[/QUOTE] You would have a point if it wasn't for the fact that they built these purely for [B]defence[/B], not attacking other country. And who knows if they have Strategic missiles. [QUOTE=GunFox;33533738]Nukes are very dangerous to PEOPLE. The world? It doesn't give a fuck. We could detonate every nuke humanity has ever produced in China and folks in Canada likely wouldn't even notice. Hell, Japan might not see anything other than a smoke plume.[/QUOTE] Sorry to break this to you, but the rest of the world isn't as self-centered as your country is. We would, indeed, give a fuck.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;33534023]You would have a point if it wasn't for the fact that they built these purely for [B]defence[/B], not attacking other country. And who knows if they have Strategic missiles.[/quote] Generally it isn't difficult to figure out if someone has strategic missiles. Such programs are virtually impossible to hide. [quote]Sorry to break this to you, but the rest of the world isn't as self-centered as your country is. We would, indeed, give a fuck.[/QUOTE] I was referring to the planet itself. I was separating people from the term "global health." It is a common myth that nukes can somehow damage the planet itself. While I appreciate your willingness to show distaste for the actions of a country, even if it is my own, you might want to temper that with the realization that I am not the embodiment of my nation. I find our actions in the world to be ridiculously irresponsible and largely pointless.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;33534014]Only a matter of time until Pakistan has one stolen by some terrorist organization[/QUOTE] When you have nuclear weapons, you usually have entire agencies watching after and taking care of them, which generally means that they are very, very hard to steal. Or get near. Or see.
[QUOTE=Clementine;33533982]The concept of war is to destroy your enemy, not destroy everyone.[/QUOTE]No, the concept of war is to use force to bend the opposition to your will. Whether or not everybody dies is irrelevant.
Let me get this straight...someone made something better than USA did and the USA is saying, "Yeah, whatever. Give it to us."? That's not right.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33533738]Nukes are very dangerous to PEOPLE. The world? It doesn't give a fuck. We could detonate every nuke humanity has ever produced in China and folks in Canada likely wouldn't even notice. Hell, Japan might not see anything other than a smoke plume.[/QUOTE] are you dumb or something If you detonated that many nuclear weapons anywhere in the world the dust and radioactive fallout would be catastrophic.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33534205]are you dumb or something If you detonated that many nuclear weapons anywhere in the world the dust and radioactive fallout would be catastrophic.[/QUOTE] Life goes on. Give the planet a few thousand or hundred thousand years, it will regrow.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33534205]are you dumb or something If you detonated that many nuclear weapons anywhere in the world the dust and radioactive fallout would be catastrophic.[/QUOTE] So would a nuclear war, we're already long past that. And what do you think's going to happen? It's a pretty big planet and nuclear fallout isn't going to cover everything or even reach most things. Even if it does, it would be incredibly diluted and may cause deaths from radiation poisoning, but seeing as we've just left a nuclear war they aren't really going to compare.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33534205]are you dumb or something If you detonated that many nuclear weapons anywhere in the world the dust and radioactive fallout would be catastrophic.[/QUOTE] Not to mention EVERYONE WOULD DIE HORRIBLY. Fuck, just one could kill everyone in Sheffield, let alone the fallout and radiation poisoning. And even if someone survived, they'd most probably have cancer and be blinded from the flash. Nukes aren't fun, kids.
[QUOTE=Cone;33534230]Not to mention EVERYONE WOULD DIE HORRIBLY. Fuck, just one could kill everyone in Sheffield, let alone the fallout and radiation poisoning. And even if someone survived, they'd most probably have cancer and be blinded from the flash. Nukes aren't fun, kids.[/QUOTE] Land surface area of planet: 148,940,000 km2. Area of Sheffield: 367.94 km2 Less than .0003% of the planet. You would need 400,000 nukes. I mean just look at Hiroshima, it's still a city, there are actual survivors from it, the radiation caused plenty of deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer but it's not a wasteland.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33534247]Land surface area of planet: 148,940,000 km2. Area of Sheffield: 367.94 km2 Less than .0003% of the planet. You would need 400,000 nukes. I mean just look at Hiroshima, it's still a city, there are actual survivors from it, the radiation caused plenty of deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer but it's not a wasteland.[/QUOTE] When I said "everyone" would die, I just meant everyone in the affected area. Plus, as far as I'm aware, the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are much less "advanced" than modern-day ones. I saw a graph a while back tracking the increase of devastation if a nuke from a time period were dropped, anyone know where that is?
As DEFCON said, it's not about winning, it's about loosing the least.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;33534247]I mean just look at Hiroshima, it's still a city, there are actual survivors from it, the radiation caused plenty of deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer but it's not a wasteland.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://joyannaadams.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/hiroshian-two1.jpg[/IMG] Hiroshima 2011, one of Japan's largest cities. [IMG]http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/images/japan/nagasaki/nagasaki-0001.jpg[/IMG] Nagasaki 2011. Nuclear bombs are a tactical advantage, especially defense-wise, but their actual powers are often exaggerated. Of course one in use would be terrible, but not 'a country's apocalypse' terrible.
[QUOTE=mac338;33534482][IMG]http://joyannaadams.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/hiroshian-two1.jpg[/IMG] Hiroshima 2011, one of Japan's largest cities.[/QUOTE]Gorgeous.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33534205]are you dumb or something If you detonated that many nuclear weapons anywhere in the world the dust and radioactive fallout would be catastrophic.[/QUOTE] You would think that, but no. The quake that hit Japan earlier? That put out force equivalent to 9320 gigatons of TNT. That is literally 600 MILLION times stronger than the bomb that hit Hiroshima. Is everyone in the world dead? Is everyone in Japan dead? Is a significant portion of Japan dead? Now surely you hit the surface with a bunch of nukes and you are indeed going to throw up more dust, buuuut the planet still laughs at your pathetic attempts at force. We are still just tiny specks on a giant rock.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.