What's new

Has Pakistan's Nuclear capability been beneficial to the country?

Has Pakistan's Nuclear capability been beneficial to the country?

  • Total voters
    9
MenInG

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,977
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today in 1998, PM Nawaz Sharif rejected pressures & inducements in a bold show of leadership & made Pakistan nuclear power of the world. Now we are resolved to turn it into an economic power. My gratitude to all those who helped make our defense invincible.<br><br>Youm-e-Takbir Mubarak</p>— Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) <a href="https://twitter.com/CMShehbaz/status/1530431157015298048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

==

So are we better off with it?
 
Last edited:
The purpose of having nuclear weapons isnt to hit each other with nuclear bombs. This is something that most people get wrong that just because you have a nuclear weapon you should be using it aswell.

Having a nuclear weapon allows you to create nuclear deterance.

When it comes to artillery and army equipment, india is far ahead. They have better artillery, planes etc. India can easily fight a conventional war with Pakistan.

What Pakistan has done in return is to tackle the conventional attack of india, they dont really have the capabilities interms of equipment, thus they have made nuclear missle warheads.

Pakistan has a policy of first strike not second strike. India has a second strike policy. The reason for that is, if India does a conventional advancement, we will launch a nuclear. Our policy is to defend the country from any military or even economical destruction by india on us.

The most dangerous misslehead we have is the Nasr. Its only 60 km range. I used to wonder what was the purpose of having such range capability, but i learned its because of our policy to match the indian advancement.

Thus, to answer the question, the nuclear provide us deterance. Its provides the country with security from india. India cant make official afvancements towards pakistan due to our first strike capability and policy.

If you talk about the oppurnitity cost, yes, Pakistan has paid a high oppurtunity cost on it. Education budget has been reduced again by pmln just few days ago.

Economically, we have suffered with this, but nuclear was needed, or else we would had no country today.

It was because of the nuclewr deterance we went for siachan and today atleast have 30percrnt claim on it. We knew that once we enter the conflict other countries will intervene and stop both countries from going to war.
 
Lets get down to the nitty gritty and ask - Do we think India is less likely to attack Pakistan due to the nuclear deterrent?
 
MenInG said:
Lets get down to the nitty gritty and ask - Do we think India is less likely to attack Pakistan due to the nuclear deterrent?
Click to expand...

off course, specially for large scale attack or aggression. At best now India can only do hit and run aerial surgical attacks, even that failed badly.
 
I think after Ukraine situation, it makes total sense to have this deterrence. Question I would ask is how many warheads and how much investment. How much deterrence is enough deterrence ?

Also, this has to be looked at now more clearly. Bangladesh is perhaps the most successful economy per capital in the region. They seperated in 1971 and decided to chart a new course. They are not looking for this deterrence. What does this tell us ? Answers are never simple but if one asks the right questions, one can course correct.
 
Pakistan carried out the tests after India conducted a series of five nuclear test explosions at Pokhran in May, 1998.

The Pakistan Army on May 28 observed the 24th anniversary of the country's nuclear tests and said it established a “credible minimum nuclear deterrence” and restored the "balance of power" in the region. Both the Pakistan Army and Foreign Office issued separate statements to mark the 24th anniversary of the May 28, 1998 nuclear tests, codenamed 'Yaum-e-Takbeer' (The day of greatness).

Pakistan carried out the tests after India conducted a series of five nuclear test explosions at Pokhran in May, 1998. “Pakistan established credible minimum nuclear deterrence, restoring balance of power in the region,” the Pakistan Army said in a statement.

“Armed Forces pay tribute to all those who worked selflessly, stayed steadfast against all odds and made this possible,” it said. Separately, the Foreign Office (FO) said the tests not only demonstrated the resolve of the Pakistani nation to safeguard Pakistan’s territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty, but also the desire to preserve strategic balance in South Asia.

“Pakistan is committed to the promotion of an environment of peace and stability in South Asia, while preserving its capability to ward off aggression or adventurism in any form,” it said.

It added that threats to strategic stability in South Asia underscore the importance of Pakistan’s proposal for Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) which provides for measures for the resolution of outstanding issues, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, nuclear and missile restraints; and conventional balance.

Pakistan is a partner in international efforts to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime based on the principles of non-discrimination and equal security for all states, the statement said. The FO also said the nation also appreciates the contributions of Pakistan’s nuclear programme to the country’s socio-economic development.

This year, operationalisation of the second 1100 MWe K-3 Nuclear Power Plant in Karachi marks another milestone, which signifies the role of nuclear science and technology for socio-economic development and welfare of the people of Pakistan, it said.

Hindu
 
In one sense it has been beneficial for us that it has taken Pakistan being invaded by India out of the equation. Considering the size disparity Pakistan would have regularly faced Ukraine type situation had it not been for the nukes.


On the flip side the nukes have only emboldened the military establishment in the country and now they not only want a say in defense and foreign matters but also day to day running of the country. Khan was asserting civilian supremacy and that is why he was made to go.

I just wish that partition was not botched and we had good relations with India since independence due to which we would have never needed such a strong military which is biting the hand that feeds it.
 
MenInG said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today in 1998, PM Nawaz Sharif rejected pressures & inducements in a bold show of leadership & made Pakistan nuclear power of the world. Now we are resolved to turn it into an economic power. My gratitude to all those who helped make our defense invincible.<br><br>Youm-e-Takbir Mubarak</p>— Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) <a href="https://twitter.com/CMShehbaz/status/1530431157015298048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

==

So are we better off with it?
Click to expand...

Nawaz would sell his own mother for money and would have no problem selling nukes. Doing the tests and so on was never his decision, that always came from the establishment.
 
No tech industry, no real startups, hardly any industries, no great universities, billionaires are thieves, no governance but hey we have nukes
 
Pakistan cuts higher education spend by 50%. Unfortunately, while people keep getting emotional about one or two personalities, the real owners have decided their priorities long time back and they won’t change.
 
What is the benefit of having nukes when country has 50percent population below the poverty line. I actually see no benefits.
 
DRsohail said:
What is the benefit of having nukes when country has 50percent population below the poverty line. I actually see no benefits.
Click to expand...

Bajwa and the military generals before and after him are not below the poverty line though.
 
It benefited Pakistan bcoz it saved Pakistan from an Indian invasion after Kargil war or Mumbai attacks

The problem here is Pakistan wud have never attempted Kargil or Mumbai attacks if they did not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan went ahead with full support to groups like Lashkar e Toiba and JeM knowing India cannot retaliate bcoz of nuclear weapons

On the flip side - Pakistan has paid terrible economic price bcoz of Kargil war and its support to Kashmir insurgency. The economic sanctions and FATF have wrecked the Pakistan economy in the last 15 years. Also India's support to Baloch and TTP has created massive security problems for Pakistan which has turned away foreign investors. After the recent attacks on Chinese nationals, there will be fewer Chinese coming back to Pakistan.

Now imagine if Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons. Then they wud not have supported Kashmir insurgency or launched Kargil war or planned Mumbai attacks. There wud have been relative peace and harmony between India and Pakistan. There wud have been no sanctions and FATF. Trade and economic ties wud have boomed and Pakistan wud not be facing the high inflation and economic stagnation. That wud have enhanced the living standards of common people of Pakistan

I guess Pakistan had 2 career choices - economic growth vs Kashmir. With nuclear weopons int the armoury, Pakistan sacrificed the economic goal in favor of Kashmir. The price is being paid in terms of inflation , unemployment and economic slowdown but if the average Pakistani is fine with it then why bother. Zulfikar Bhutto famously said Pakistan will eat grass if needed to secure Kashmir. Well in few years, Pakistanis will have to eat grass for real

Bangladesh did the exact opposite under Sheikh Hasina. Buried the hatchet with India and focused solely on economic growth. Which is why average Bangladeshi has better living standards than average Pakistani
 
Shehbaz Sharif agreed to sign CTBT in 1995: Shamshad Ahmad, veteran Pakistani diplomat

In an interview to Sami Ibrahim a few months back, veteran Pakistani diplomat, Shamshad Ahmad revealed that Shehbaz Sharif in 1995 when his brother was prime minister, agreed to sign CTBT which would mean Pakistan cannot conduct nuclear tests.

Watch from 03:30 onwards:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBdqfQYd3f0
 
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) General Nadeem Raza on Monday said that Pakistan’s nuclear programme enjoys "across the board support of all political parties" and the people of Pakistan.

General Raza’s statements were made during a keynote on the seminar "Regional Environment and Imperatives of Security" at the NUST Institute of Policy Studies (NIPS). Students, academics and distinguished experts from different parts of the country participated.

According to a press release by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Chairman JCSC - who is also the deputy chairman of the National Command Authority (NCA) - commented on the regional security environment and reiterated the significance of Pakistan’s nuclear capability as the “guarantor of deterrence and defence of the motherland.”

General Raza said that Pakistan’s nuclear programme enjoys across board support and “the NCA, with all its political and military leadership, stands firm for the strategic programme".

He asserted that national security is indivisible and assured that under no circumstances shall Pakistan allow a compromise on its nuclear programme.

"Pakistan is a confident and responsible nuclear power. It pursues the policy of full-spectrum deterrence within the precincts of credible minimum deterrence. Our national security and safety architecture meets all national and international obligations and caters for all kinds of scenarios," the chairman added.

Chairman JCSC General Nadeem Raza concluded that as is the norm in other nuclear-capable nations, “unnecessary and unfounded views on the strategic programme should be avoided. When necessary, NCA is the right forum to issue specific responses or views."

Express Tribune
 
India has Indian nuclear bomb, USA has American nuclear bomb, Pakistan has an Islamic nuclear bomb (not my words)

By that account itself, Pakistan has the most important nuclear bomb in the world :)
 
There is a comfortable middle ground between

Akhand Bharat and Ghazwa-e-Hind.

I will take a leap of faith and say most Indians and Pakistanis don’t care for either.

Yes Kashmir is an issue of ego, emotion, sentiment whatever you want to call it.

There is an underlying tension and both countries have armed themselves in self defense. Good for them.

There are 100 other issues to be concerned about and am I too off saying that Pakistan has a lot more issues now relatively speaking.

People think nuclear weapon is like a TV that you just turn on with a remote. Doesn’t work that way.

Both countries have a lot to lose if there is a conventional war.

Neither India army nor Pak army will ever use nuclear weapons.

Even if it somehow finds itself in the hands of fringe groups like Taliban etc even they are not dumb enough to just press the button and watch the tamasha. Even they will use it for leverage. That’s about it.
 
I hear this all the time, "if it wasn't for Pakistan's nuclear power, they would be another Afghanistan or Syria".

But this nuclear power has come at huge cost. Pakistan has failed to develop and progress as a nation. I would rather be where Bangladesh is with their thriving economy. Our outlook looks very bleak compared to theirs and it's only matter of time when they leave Pakistan in the dust.

Rather than focusing on nuclear power, we should have used resources to develop the economy and modernise Pakistan with new industries. But unfortunately that won't change with the army in power.
 
Major said:
The purpose of having nuclear weapons isnt to hit each other with nuclear bombs. This is something that most people get wrong that just because you have a nuclear weapon you should be using it aswell.

Having a nuclear weapon allows you to create nuclear deterance.

When it comes to artillery and army equipment, india is far ahead. They have better artillery, planes etc. India can easily fight a conventional war with Pakistan.

What Pakistan has done in return is to tackle the conventional attack of india, they dont really have the capabilities interms of equipment, thus they have made nuclear missle warheads.

Pakistan has a policy of first strike not second strike. India has a second strike policy. The reason for that is, if India does a conventional advancement, we will launch a nuclear. Our policy is to defend the country from any military or even economical destruction by india on us.

The most dangerous misslehead we have is the Nasr. Its only 60 km range. I used to wonder what was the purpose of having such range capability, but i learned its because of our policy to match the indian advancement.

Thus, to answer the question, the nuclear provide us deterance. Its provides the country with security from india. India cant make official afvancements towards pakistan due to our first strike capability and policy.

If you talk about the oppurnitity cost, yes, Pakistan has paid a high oppurtunity cost on it. Education budget has been reduced again by pmln just few days ago.

Economically, we have suffered with this, but nuclear was needed, or else we would had no country today.

It was because of the nuclewr deterance we went for siachan and today atleast have 30percrnt claim on it. We knew that once we enter the conflict other countries will intervene and stop both countries from going to war.
Click to expand...

Do you genuinely believe this?
 
Of course , we have the most extreme anti Muslim , anti Pak government on the planet next door .

No point of worrying about economic if you’re dead or your nation is all but destroyed
 
topspin said:
Do you genuinely believe this?
Click to expand...

We couldnt develop our army to be able to fight a conventional warefare. We would lose a conventional one easily to India. The nuclear protects us from that. We are crazy enough to have a policy that if india does a conventional attack we would be nuking them . We have a nasr just for this purpose.

India hated us, and they would had made many moves and international bodies wouldnt had done anything. Its the nuclear that gets everyone involved and to husu up and conflict.

We could had been ukraine without the nukes
 
Major said:
We couldnt develop our army to be able to fight a conventional warefare. We would lose a conventional one easily to India. The nuclear protects us from that. We are crazy enough to have a policy that if india does a conventional attack we would be nuking them . We have a nasr just for this purpose.

India hated us, and they would had made many moves and international bodies wouldnt had done anything. Its the nuclear that gets everyone involved and to husu up and conflict.

We could had been ukraine without the nukes
Click to expand...

You realize that war costs a lot of $$$ right. Russia has better nukes tech probably then both India and Pak, Ukraine has none. Since when is the war happening and how has it worked out for Russia?

It’s not that piece of cake to invade a country even if it doesn’t have an army leave alone nukes.
 
topspin said:
I hear this all the time, "if it wasn't for Pakistan's nuclear power, they would be another Afghanistan or Syria".

But this nuclear power has come at huge cost. Pakistan has failed to develop and progress as a nation. I would rather be where Bangladesh is with their thriving economy. Our outlook looks very bleak compared to theirs and it's only matter of time when they leave Pakistan in the dust.

Rather than focusing on nuclear power, we should have used resources to develop the economy and modernise Pakistan with new industries. But unfortunately that won't change with the army in power.
Click to expand...

But our economic situation has nothing to do with our standing as a nuclear nation.
 
topspin said:
I hear this all the time, "if it wasn't for Pakistan's nuclear power, they would be another Afghanistan or Syria".

But this nuclear power has come at huge cost. Pakistan has failed to develop and progress as a nation. I would rather be where Bangladesh is with their thriving economy. Our outlook looks very bleak compared to theirs and it's only matter of time when they leave Pakistan in the dust.

Rather than focusing on nuclear power, we should have used resources to develop the economy and modernise Pakistan with new industries. But unfortunately that won't change with the army in power.
Click to expand...

Bangladesh is different though. India is not anti muslim when it comes to foreign countries. Many people have this false narrative. India maitains better relationships with muslim countries than we do.

India issue was with pakistan, how this country was carved out of a land that they believe should had been theirs. For them, even if they cant have pakistan they would rather have pakistan be taken over by any foreign forces rather than pakistan itself to exist.

Bangladesh doesnt suffer from any enemy.

Pakistan could had done both, had the country stayed on its socialism goal under Bhutto.


Shimla agreement was a wake up call. Pakistan had to accept where they stood and when india did their first nuclear test in 74,it was under bhutto that we decided to compete for it who laid down the ground work and got all the people working on it before his death.

Pakistan had a nuclear policy that even protects itself from any aggression from india where they may try to sabotage our economy.

Thus, had we foregone nuclear, and tried to be a strong economy, india wouldnt had allowed us to exist in peace.

Pakistan issue with the millatary is not related with nuclear spending, its related with the 50s politics followed by the millitary coups that made that allowed our millitary to interven in our politics today
 
Local.Dada said:
You realize that war costs a lot of $$$ right. Russia has better nukes tech probably then both India and Pak, Ukraine has none. Since when is the war happening and how has it worked out for Russia?

It’s not that piece of cake to invade a country even if it doesn’t have an army leave alone nukes.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing called better nuke technology. Nukes exists based on your goal and strategy. Your missile heads are manufactured in such ways.

Pak, india and russian, all three would have different strategies when it would come to nukes, and thus the heads would be made accordingly, thus any debate on who has better nuke tech is irrelevent.

Didnt Russia annes crimea? Even if war costs money, we still saw the battle of sir creeks, or the kargil(plus siachen) takeover by india in the 80s.

Ukraine has nato and the european union factor.

Pakistan never had such factors. If china becomes a leading super power with pakistan providing the benefits to it from CPEC than we would achieve the international protection interms of economics.
 
Major said:
We couldnt develop our army to be able to fight a conventional warefare. We would lose a conventional one easily to India. The nuclear protects us from that. We are crazy enough to have a policy that if india does a conventional attack we would be nuking them . We have a nasr just for this purpose.

India hated us, and they would had made many moves and international bodies wouldnt had done anything. Its the nuclear that gets everyone involved and to husu up and conflict.

We could had been ukraine without the nukes
Click to expand...

Fair points I made. I won't disagree with you and [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] on this.

I appreciate your explanations because I genuinely believed all this time that this was just another crazy Pakistani conspiracy of "the world is against us".
 
topspin said:
Fair points I made. I won't disagree with you and [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] on this.

I appreciate your explanations because I genuinely believed all this time that this was just another crazy Pakistani conspiracy of "the world is against us".
Click to expand...
Would want @kb to shed some light in this thread. Very few creadible postera around here when it comes to our history
 
Yes absolutely.

Pakistan is bordered next to a country who's fanatical establishment dont consider it a legitimate state.

In the long run nukes are a relatively inexpensive way of guaranteeing sovereignty and halting Indian aggression.
 
Meanwhile..
India on Monday conducted a test of the nuclear capable Agni-IV ballistic missile, which has a strike range of 4,000 km, as part of a “night user trial in operational configuration” by the Strategic Forces Command (SFC)


The tri-Service SFC already has the Prithvi-II (350-km), Agni-I (700-km), Agni-II (2,000-km), Agni-III (3,000-km) and Agni-IV missile units, while the induction of the country’s first intercontinental ballistic missile Agni-V (over 5,000-km) is currently in an advanced stage.

“The successful test was part of the routine user training launches carried out under the aegis of the SFC. The launch validated all operational parameters as also the reliability of the system. The successful test reaffirms India's policy of having a 'credible minimum deterrence' capability,” the defence ministry said in a statement.
 
The third leg of India’s nuclear triad is, however, still far away from becoming robust, represented as it is by the solitary nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) INS Arihant armed with only 750-km range K-15 missiles as of now.
Countries like the US, Russia and China have SSBNs with well over 5,000-km range submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). India has three more SSBNs under development, with INS Arighat now slated for commissioning this year after some delay. The K-4 missiles, with a strike range of 3,500-km, in turn, will take at least one more year to be ready for induction.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/in...allistic-missile/amp_articleshow/92043716.cms
 
Did nukes change Pakistan's trajectory to follow North Korea or follow Bangladesh?

Pakistan's army had a full control over country before and after nukes.

Nukes did very little to change direction.

Very little impact.
 
The Foreign Office on Friday vehemently denied that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was on the agenda with any “government, financial institution, or any international organisation".

The statement from spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch at a weekly news briefing came against the backdrop of speculations that Pakistan was under pressure to roll back its long-range nuclear missile programme.

Speaking in the Senate on Thursday, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had said that no one had the right to dictate Pakistan on its nuclear or missile programme. His statement triggered a debate about whether there was any pressure on Pakistan to compromise on its strategic assets in return for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout.

Responding to a question at the briefing, the Foreign Office spokesperson said: “I would not like to comment on a debate that is taking place in the Parliament. Secondly, I have said earlier and I would like to reiterate that the issues that you have mentioned about Pakistan's nuclear programme are not on the agenda with any government, any financial institution or any international organisation."

"This debate is just speculative and I would not like to add to the speculation," she added.

Express Tribune
 
No ‘nuclear’ string attached to 9th Review: IMF official
Discussions with the Pakistani authorities have exclusively focused on economic policies, says Esther Perez

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has rejected speculation that the lending institution had attached any conditions to Pakistan’s missile or nuclear program as part of the ninth review of the IMF-supported program, reports Geo News on Sunday.

Stating that there was “absolutely no truth” to any such insinuations, Esther Perez Luiz, the IMF resident representative, clarified that discussions with the Pakistani authorities have exclusively focused on economic policies to address the country’s economic and balance of payments issues.

...
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1051921-no-nuclear-string-attached-to-9th-review-imf-official
 
Shehbaz must issue policy statement on nuclear programme, says PTI

Mr Qureshi, a former foreign minister, expressed surprise as to why a deal with IMF was not being finalised despite the fact that Pakistan has fulfilled all the demands of the global lender.

“No one has the right to tell us what kind of nuclear programme we should have and missiles of which range we should have. We have our atomic arsenal South Asia-specific and to ensure our defence,” he said.

“There is national consensus over the atomic assets and we will protect them no matter which government is in power,” he emphasised.

...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1743164/shehbaz-must-issue-policy-statement-on-nuclear-programme-says-pti
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
Has Pakistan's standing in the world taken devastating hit due to PDM's crackdown?
Replies
26
Views
1K
cricketjoshila
cricketjoshila
MenInG
  • Poll Poll
Which country has the best pace bowling quartet currently in Test cricket?
Replies
24
Views
2K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
MenInG
  • Poll Poll
Why can't India and Pakistan come to the negotiating table like USA - North Korea?
2
Replies
128
Views
6K
PakLFC
P
Back
Top