Nuclear, Missile and Space Warfare: Q & A

49 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Its very unlikely that the army is going to let that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Its very unlikely that the army is going to let that happen.

Seriously, Zadari needs a bullet in the back of his head. Not only did he help in ensuring he got his wife murdered, he has now started on murdering Pakistan. The favour should be returned!

What next, rollback of JF17.. Suspension of the Al Khalid production line ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I really doubt it. Zaradris power is checked by PA as evidence by the ISI episode. Its a red line and he as much as puts a foot across it it will be cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Beyond Nuclear Deterrence

The Transformation of Indo-Pak Equation

Dr QADAR BAKHSH BALOCH urges India and Pakistan to formulate their nuclear and conventional strategies realistically without threats of mutual annihilation.

Abstract

Pakistan that was once a de facto nuclear power became an overt nuclear state a decade ago. 28th May 1998; that marked a transition to a more credible state of nuclear deterrence apparently giving Pakistan a sense of security against more powerful India. Now Pakistan's resolve to maintain nuclear deterrence at all cost is aimed at offsetting India's conventional superiority, and providing a last-ditch deterrent to Indian aggression in the event that conventional deterrence fails.The paper assesses the viability of the deterrence against the backdrop of on going modernization of Indian nuclear and missile programs. Attempt is also made to evaluate Pakistan's nuclear force today in order to assess as to what extent it is adequate in maintaining its level of "minimum nuclear deterrence" and how this adequacy might change in the future with the realization of Indo-US nuclear cooperation and provision of missile defense system to India.............more

http://www.defencejournal.com/2008-7/index.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Have on good account, that the Armed Forces - will make up any short fall of R&D funding in the strategic field by the prof, using the funds generated by affiliated commercial organs.

Get ready for ppp-stooge I Siqqique to cry foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Wake up call for Pakistan, is Pakistan even prepared ??
 
Rai Muhammad Saleh Azam

The possession of nuclear weapons by Muslim states does not fit anywhere in the US vision of the New World. The US is committed to neutralizing any emerging challenges to its global hegemony, both economic and military. Since the US can do little to counter the economic threat from emerging economic superpowers such as China and Europe, it has begun focusing heavily on countering military and strategic threats. Muslim states armed with nuclear weapons are one such intolerable threat. In its endeavours, it has found a natural ally in Israel. The alliance is one that is based on national self-interests – energy availability and power-projection for the US and self-preservation for Israel. Containment of Islam is also a common objective of both the countries, which are bitterly and vehemently opposed to any Muslim country acquiring nuclear weapons, which they perceive as threats to their strategic interests.

The US invasion of Iraq started a long-term joint US-Israeli strategy to weaken, neutralize, ‘tame’ and, eventually, reshape the Islamic World. Beginning with the most powerful Muslim countries, this strategy is aimed at securing US strategic and economic interests and guaranteeing the survivability, dominance and ascendancy of Israel in the Middle East, both as local US policeman and agent provocateur – to keep the Muslim World otherwise occupied by periodically stirring up trouble in its heartland. What is happening in the Middle East today is not just about Iraq – it’s about all those Muslim countries – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan (among others) – that potentially have the power and means to oppose US/Israeli hegemony and control of the region – a grand new design to change the political and strategic landscape of the entire Muslim World, beginning with the Middle East. The US and Israel hope to achieve something similar to what was done to the area under the Paris Peace Conference of 1918 – the infamous “Peace to end all Peace”, whose violent legacy the world is still reaping today.

If the US is opposed to Muslim countries acquiring nuclear weapons then, a priori, it is also opposed to Muslim countries retaining nuclear weapons – one logically follows from the other. The US has, for the time being, and for reasons of diplomatic, geopolitical and strategic expediency, conveniently ignored Pakistan’s nuclear programme, but it has not reconciled with it. Pakistan must understand this and not misread US intentions – silence is not necessarily acceptance. It is logical that Pakistan, the Islamic World’s only nuclear power, will, for various reasons, find itself in the crosshairs and become the target of joint US-Israeli-Indian machinations at a propitious moment in time. Today, the US has more pressing problems to worry about – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and North Korea. Its palette is currently full. However, once it has “sorted out” these countries, it will, inevitably, turn and focus its attention on Pakistan. How can the US and Israel – who cannot even tolerate Muslim countries from attaining superior conventional defence capabilities, remain silent in the face of a Muslim nuclear power that is, with the passage of each day, strengthening and consolidating its nuclear deterrent capabilities. It is logically inconceivable how the US can let Pakistan, the world’s only Muslim nuclear power, perceived by the US of proliferating nuclear technology to two of America’s greatest enemies – Iran and North Korea, get away scot-free? This is a gathering storm that Pakistan needs to keep a close eye on. 

We can either face up to this reality or go into a state of denial and remain oblivious to the distant rumble of this storm like an ostrich, which, when faced with danger, buries its head in the ground believing that the threat does not exist or hoping it will go away. It’s all very simple – the US does not perceive it to be in its national interest for any Muslim country to possess nuclear weapons. National interest is the overriding factor in determining a country’s policy towards other nations. There has already been official ‘chatter’ in Washington, D.C. of invoking, at some future date, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption against Pakistan – on the false notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling into the hands of “Islamic radicals” and pose a threat to US and Western interests. Allegations of nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea (the so-called "Axis of Evil") may also be employed as an additional excuse to rally American and Western support for such an action. The US is, for the time being, holding on to the A.Q. Khan card very close to its chest in order to play it at a more opportune time in future. If a false premise can be concocted vis-à-vis Iraq, then a similar concoction can be brewed as an excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan. 

One nightmare scenario envisages a CIA/Mossad-sponsored assassination of President – paving the way for a US pre-emptive strike against Pakistan’s nuclear capability on the pretext that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling into the “wrong hands”. 

This scenario is the subject of continuous contingency planning and wargaming at the Pentagon. Reportedly, the Pentagon is preparing a contingency plan for exactly such an eventuality involving the neutralization of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent capability and it has, on numerous occasions, let its intentions be known through planned “leaks.”

 
Periodically, the US intelligence agencies release “Reports”, such as the 2005 Global Futures Assessment Report prepared and recently released jointly by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA, which claims (rather outlandishly) that Pakistan will be a Yugoslavia-like “failed state” by 2015 with Islamic extremists vying for the control of its nuclear weapons. The purpose behind periodically releasing such baseless “Reports” is to marinate public opinion to prepare it for a forced nuclear disarmament campaign against Pakistan at some future date.

The modus operandi would be vastly different from Iraq since, in the case of Pakistan, the United States would be dealing with an established nuclear power with operational nuclear weapons and even the world’s sole superpower does not possess the capability to occupy a country with more than 170 million people, of whom at least 6 million are armed, with highly-trained armed forces and a terrain much different from that of Iraq – one more suited for protracted guerrilla and attrition warfare. Pakistan is a country that cannot be occupied militarily. However, Pakistan’s nuclear installations can be targeted using American airpower with the help of US satellites. Although, one may question US ability to locate and destroy each and every well-concealed mobile launcher in a mountainous country the size of Texas and twice the size of Iraq. In order to effectively counter this threat, Pakistan needs to invest heavily in airpower and high altitude air defence systems.

* Under the garb of “securing” Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, elements within the US establishment have proposed the “tagging” of Pakistani nuclear warheads. The idea is to electronically tag each warhead with a transmitting device that could be picked up by US military satellites.The tagging could also be done by traitors with the Pakistani Nuclear-Military personnel. The overt purpose being to prevent these warheads from failing into the hands of “terrorists” (an impossibility considering foolproof custodial controls and airtight security multilayering surrounding them). However, these electronic tags would also play the role of the proverbial Trojan Horse – allowing the US to track their exact movements with the help of the global positioning system (GPS), identify their locations at a given moment in time and, eventually, destroying them.

If the US does surprise attack, it will first try to neutralize the Pakistan Air Force and gain complete air dominance over Pakistan’s airspace, which it will achieve but at a high price. At the same time, it will target our nuclear weapons, TELs (transporters-erectors-launchers), etc. Once it has achieved total air superiority, it will begin targeting Pakistan’s strategic installations, nuclear reactors, defence industry, airbases, cantonments, weapons depots, etc. It may also send in special forces to take out or “secure” some of our nuclear weapons. However, the US would be faced with a major tactical obstacle – such as the one it faced while dealing with Iraqi Scud TELs in the 1991 US-Iraq War – it is impossible to locate all mobile launchers. This means Pakistan will still have the capability to launch quite a few nuclear missiles. This is also why it is all the more imperative for Pakistan to acquire submarine-launched nuclear weapons capability in order to guarantee first-strike survivability and counter-strike capability. 

Pakistan must develop a dynamic nuclear doctrine that is adaptable to the fluid geopolitical and strategic threat environment that envelops Pakistan. Currently, four major components of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine are that Pakistan may use nuclear weapons (i) if Pakistan is attacked with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (ii) if Pakistan’s nuclear capability is targeted using conventional or unconventional means; (iii) if Pakistan’s territorial integrity is threatened (i.e. India attacks Pakistan and occupies a large part of its territory); and (iv) when faced with an imminent threat to its nuclear capability, Pakistan may exercise the first strike option (or pre-emptive strike). Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who currently heads the National Command Authority’s Strategic Plans Division, has enumerated three additional India-specific triggering scenarios of deterrence failure that would (or could) lead to nuclear retaliation by Pakistan: (v) India destroys a large part of Pakistan’s Army or Air Force; (iv) India proceeds to economically strangulate Pakistan; and (vii) India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large-scale internal subversion in Pakistan (as it did in 1971 in East Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh).

A new dimension that needs to be added to Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is what we may call “collateral deterrence.” Under the doctrine of collateral deterrence, if a country, other than India, were to attack Pakistan using weapons of mass destruction or targets Pakistan’s nuclear capability using conventional or unconventional means, Pakistan would retaliate by using nuclear weapons against the aggressing state as well as India and Israel – the country that stands to gain most from such an action. Therefore, the targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear capability by a third country will have “collateral” consequences for India and Israel. Simply put, Pakistan will nuke India and Israel no matter who targets Pakistan’s nuclear capability. 

The doctrine of collateral deterrence is based on the premise that Pakistan, denuded and deprived of its nuclear capability, will be at the mercy of its enemies, in particularly India, and will cease to exist in the form in which it does today, if not altogether. Until it achieves a certain degree of economic strength, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will remain the key to its territorial integrity and sovereignty – indeed, to our very survival as an independent state. Any harm to our deterrent will have fatal consequences for Pakistan. Stripping Pakistan of its nuclear weapons would tantamount to inviting aggression. India will waste no time in attacking Pakistan with the intent of annexing Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan’s Northern Areas and hold Pakistan to nuclear blackmail. Having gained control of the source of our rivers, it will then use water as a weapon to keep Pakistan on its knees for the rest of its existence. At worst, Pakistan may, once again, be dismembered. Thus, India stands to be the greatest benefactor of a de-fanged Pakistan. Therefore, by the implementation of this doctrine, Pakistan will deny India the fruits of a collateral victory and prevent India from reaping the geopolitical and strategic benefits arising out of the ashes of a vanquished Pakistan. If Pakistan should cease to exist, so would India, for Pakistan may not be able to assure its own survival but it can assure the destruction of India. This is the collateral manifestation of the classic Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, appropriately acronymed “MAD.”

In the post-9/11 scenario, Pakistan is faced with a new geo-strategic milieu. We must wake up to a new reality: the greatest threat to Pakistan’s nuclear capability does not emanate from India, but from the United States and Israel. The pro-American elements within our political-military establishment are either myopic or seem with to be totally oblivious to the distant rumble of this gathering storm or are, like the proverbial ostrich, in a state of denial. With new geopolitical and strategic threats emerging from aggressive US/Israeli posturing, indeed pre-emptive military actions, against Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq in the present and Iran and Syria in the near future), the doctrine of collateral nuclear deterrence assumes a new and greater importance for Pakistan and ought to be enhanced and developed further to bring Israel within its ambit. There may be those who will question the wisdom of extending such a doctrine to Israel and thereby needlessly agitating Israel. Firstly, it will not be needless but aimed at deterring the US. Secondly, Israel has already entered Pakistan’s geopolitical threat environment without any provocation from Pakistan. By becoming the second-largest military supplier to India after Russia, Israel has deliberately adopted an anti-Pakistan posture. Israel threatened to take out Kahuta after its strike on Tammuz-1, Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 but wisely decided not execute its threat after being warned of Pakistani retaliation against its Dimona nuclear reactor. Since then, Israeli and Pakistani relations have been based on a mutual understanding that “you stay out of my neighborhood and I’ll stay out of yours.” Israel has shattered that understanding by militarily interfacing with India heavily and aiding the development of India’s nuclear, missile and military aviation programmes, its defence industries and, more recently, through the supply of US $3 billion worth of military equipment to India, including the Phalcon airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) – a strategic force multiplier. We also cannot remain oblivious to the possibility that one of the nuclear devices tested by India in May 1998 was an Israeli device. Therefore, there is no need for us to be apologetic about aiming one or two of our strategic missiles at Tel Aviv and Dimona because Israel has already carried out training exercises against a mock-up of Kahuta in the Negev Desert.

Therefore, what is proposed is that any conventional or unconventional attack on Pakistan’s nuclear capability, would invite nuclear retaliation against both India and Israel – irrespective of who the aggressor is. Thus, a US attack on Pakistan would entail “collateral” consequences for both India and Israel – both will have to pay for any US transgression against Pakistan. This would primarily be aimed at deterring the US from launching an attack on Pakistan since the consequences would be unacceptable to the US. Pakistan would not have the capability to defend itself against the US, but it would have the capability to fatally strike its ally, Israel, which is now under the effective range of Pakistan’s latest intermediate range ballistic missile – the Ghuari-III, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead up to a distance of 3,500 km (2,175 miles). The US should remember that it would require less than a dozen nuclear weapons to completely destroy Israel – a capability that Pakistan possesses. The consequences for Pakistan are irrelevant because, a priori, without nuclear weapons Pakistan would be finished anyway. If the price of neutralizing Pakistani nukes is the destruction of the State of Israel, then the US may not be willing to pay such a high price. Indeed, it would be foolish for the Americans or the Israelis to even contemplate a plan that could entail such adverse consequences for the State of Israel. However, the US, behaving like an irrational and rabid hyperpower, is capable of making strategic miscalculations as it has clearly done with the war on Iraq. This is what makes the scenario all the more dangerous.

This is where the effectiveness of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent comes in. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were not meant for display on Pakistan Day parades and for decorating roundabouts. The mere possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent if the ‘will’ to use them is lacking. Assurances to the effect that the use of nuclear weapons is “unthinkable” do not help Pakistan’s deterrence because it leads those who wish to do us harm into believing in the false notion that come the hour of reckoning, Pakistan will shrink from using them – an assumption that is both incorrect and highly dangerous. Deterrence is effective, indeed credible, only when the possession of nuclear weapons is complemented by the will to use such weapons in your defence. The absence or deflation of this ‘will’ renders the deterrent useless, invites aggression, increases the risk of full-scale war and, ultimately, results in nuclear conflagration. For Pakistan, how this “will factor” actually plays out, when push comes to shove, remains to be seen. However, what concerns us as a nation is whether we have the strength of conviction to “push the button” in the defence of Pakistan? Or will our survival instinct take over?

There are those who argue that the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan would tantamount to national suicide since, obviously, there will be nuclear retaliation. Well, the alternative is sovereign suicide. Without nuclear weapons, Pakistan will cease to exist in the long run. So if we’re going to die anyway, we might as well go down fighting and take a few of our enemies with us and be remembered as a brave and honourable nation rather than a meek and cowardly one. The US will attack Pakistan only if it believes that we will not dare use nuclear weapons because it would mean suicide for us. However, if the US feels that Pakistan has the resolve to retaliate with nukes without a care for the consequences that will ensure, it will not dare to attack Pakistan. It is the suicidal tendency that will save us in the end. The US will not attack us so long as it remains convinced that Pakistan will use nukes in retaliation because Pakistan has the capability to destroy Israel and inflict enough damage on India to weaken it against China for the next century. This will ruin the US grand strategy for the Middle East and South Asia. It’s simply not worth the risk – the stakes for the US are too high.

Pakistan must be ready to use nuclear weapons in its defence and it must make this policy known. Pakistan must not remain under any illusion that it will not, at some future point, become the target of this joint US/Israeli grand strategy to weaken, reshape and tame the Islamic World. We cannot afford to rely on US goodwill and assurances to the contrary. Our defence and security is in our own hands and not in the hands of any other country. We must, therefore, be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Pakistan is determined to protect its nuclear capability at all costs. Let it not be said that, come the hour of reckoning, we were not equal to the task.

 
Let those who bode ill for Pakistan not live under any illusion. If we go down, we will not go down alone. 
  •  

Need source link, please?

 

Source: http://www.pakdef.org/forum/user/53-rms-azam/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A very eloquent and well thoughtout Q & A session with the Strategic Plans Division's General Khalid Kidwai at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy in Washington D.C.

Gul Khan, ndad, Khalid A. and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The comments eluding to a possible second strike capability in the next few years were especially interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

'Pakistan needs short-range "tactical" nuclear weapons to deter India'
By Web DeskPublished: March 24, 2015
 
 
Adviser to NCA Khalid Kidwai says nuclear deterrence had helped prevent war in South Asia. PHOTO: AFP
 
WASHINGTON: The Adviser to the National Command Authority Khalid Kidwai said Pakistan needs short-range “tactical” nuclear weapons to deter arch-rival India, Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
 
“Having tactical weapons would make war less likely,” Kidwai said at a conference on nuclear security organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
 
Kidwai said nuclear deterrence had helped prevent war in South Asia. Pakistan’s development of tactical weapons — in the form of the Nasr missile, which has a 60-kilometer range — was, according to Kidwai, in response to concerns that India’s larger military could still wage a conventional war against the country, thinking Pakistan would not risk retaliation with a bigger nuclear weapon.
Kidwai has led the administration of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile weapons program for 15 years.
 
During the conference, Kidwai rejected concerns over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, insisting that adequate safeguards are in place to protect what analysts have described as the world’s fastest-growing atomic arsenal.
 
On the sidelines of the conference, former Indian special envoy for disarmament and nonproliferation Rakesh Sood said it was “extremely destabilizing for any country to develop tactical nuclear weapons” and that India has no plans to. He contended that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is “cloaked in ambiguity” which undermines confidence between the two countries.
 
Pakistan’s development of smaller warheads built for use on battlefields, in addition to longer-range weapons, has increased international concerns that they could get into rogue hands because of the pervasive threat of militants in the country.
Pakistan and India have held on-off peace talks over the years but are involved in a nuclear and missile arms race that shows no sign of abating.
 
Neither side discloses the size of its arsenal. But a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank estimated that Pakistan has enough fissile material to produce between 110 and 120 nuclear weapons, and India enough for 90 to 110 weapons.
Kidawai said given the strength of the rest of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fear of “mutually assured destruction” of the South Asian rivals would ensure that “sanity prevails.”
 
At the other end of Pakistan’s missile inventory is the Shaheen-III missile that it test-fired this month. It has a range of 1,700 miles (2,750 kilometers), giving it the capability to reach every part of India — but also potentially to reach into the Middle East, including Israel.
 
Kidwai added that Pakistan wanted a missile of that range because it suspected India was developing strategic bases on its Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Bay of Bengal. He said the nuclear and missile program was “India-specific” and not aimed at other countries.
 
This article originally appeared on AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Wake up call for Pakistan, is Pakistan even prepared ??
 
Rai Muhammad Saleh Azam

The possession of nuclear weapons by Muslim states does not fit anywhere in the US vision of the New World. The US is committed to neutralizing any emerging challenges to its global hegemony, both economic and military. Since the US can do little to counter the economic threat from emerging economic superpowers such as China and Europe, it has begun focusing heavily on countering military and strategic threats. Muslim states armed with nuclear weapons are one such intolerable threat. In its endeavours, it has found a natural ally in Israel. The alliance is one that is based on national self-interests – energy availability and power-projection for the US and self-preservation for Israel. Containment of Islam is also a common objective of both the countries, which are bitterly and vehemently opposed to any Muslim country acquiring nuclear weapons, which they perceive as threats to their strategic interests.

The US invasion of Iraq started a long-term joint US-Israeli strategy to weaken, neutralize, ‘tame’ and, eventually, reshape the Islamic World. Beginning with the most powerful Muslim countries, this strategy is aimed at securing US strategic and economic interests and guaranteeing the survivability, dominance and ascendancy of Israel in the Middle East, both as local US policeman and agent provocateur – to keep the Muslim World otherwise occupied by periodically stirring up trouble in its heartland. What is happening in the Middle East today is not just about Iraq – it’s about all those Muslim countries – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan (among others) – that potentially have the power and means to oppose US/Israeli hegemony and control of the region – a grand new design to change the political and strategic landscape of the entire Muslim World, beginning with the Middle East. The US and Israel hope to achieve something similar to what was done to the area under the Paris Peace Conference of 1918 – the infamous “Peace to end all Peace”, whose violent legacy the world is still reaping today.

If the US is opposed to Muslim countries acquiring nuclear weapons then, a priori, it is also opposed to Muslim countries retaining nuclear weapons – one logically follows from the other. The US has, for the time being, and for reasons of diplomatic, geopolitical and strategic expediency, conveniently ignored Pakistan’s nuclear programme, but it has not reconciled with it. Pakistan must understand this and not misread US intentions – silence is not necessarily acceptance. It is logical that Pakistan, the Islamic World’s only nuclear power, will, for various reasons, find itself in the crosshairs and become the target of joint US-Israeli-Indian machinations at a propitious moment in time. Today, the US has more pressing problems to worry about – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and North Korea. Its palette is currently full. However, once it has “sorted out” these countries, it will, inevitably, turn and focus its attention on Pakistan. How can the US and Israel – who cannot even tolerate Muslim countries from attaining superior conventional defence capabilities, remain silent in the face of a Muslim nuclear power that is, with the passage of each day, strengthening and consolidating its nuclear deterrent capabilities. It is logically inconceivable how the US can let Pakistan, the world’s only Muslim nuclear power, perceived by the US of proliferating nuclear technology to two of America’s greatest enemies – Iran and North Korea, get away scot-free? This is a gathering storm that Pakistan needs to keep a close eye on. 

We can either face up to this reality or go into a state of denial and remain oblivious to the distant rumble of this storm like an ostrich, which, when faced with danger, buries its head in the ground believing that the threat does not exist or hoping it will go away. It’s all very simple – the US does not perceive it to be in its national interest for any Muslim country to possess nuclear weapons. National interest is the overriding factor in determining a country’s policy towards other nations. There has already been official ‘chatter’ in Washington, D.C. of invoking, at some future date, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption against Pakistan – on the false notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling into the hands of “Islamic radicals” and pose a threat to US and Western interests. Allegations of nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea (the so-called "Axis of Evil") may also be employed as an additional excuse to rally American and Western support for such an action. The US is, for the time being, holding on to the A.Q. Khan card very close to its chest in order to play it at a more opportune time in future. If a false premise can be concocted vis-à-vis Iraq, then a similar concoction can be brewed as an excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan. 

One nightmare scenario envisages a CIA/Mossad-sponsored assassination of President – paving the way for a US pre-emptive strike against Pakistan’s nuclear capability on the pretext that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling into the “wrong hands”. 

This scenario is the subject of continuous contingency planning and wargaming at the Pentagon. Reportedly, the Pentagon is preparing a contingency plan for exactly such an eventuality involving the neutralization of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent capability and it has, on numerous occasions, let its intentions be known through planned “leaks.”

 
Periodically, the US intelligence agencies release “Reports”, such as the 2005 Global Futures Assessment Report prepared and recently released jointly by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA, which claims (rather outlandishly) that Pakistan will be a Yugoslavia-like “failed state” by 2015 with Islamic extremists vying for the control of its nuclear weapons. The purpose behind periodically releasing such baseless “Reports” is to marinate public opinion to prepare it for a forced nuclear disarmament campaign against Pakistan at some future date.

The modus operandi would be vastly different from Iraq since, in the case of Pakistan, the United States would be dealing with an established nuclear power with operational nuclear weapons and even the world’s sole superpower does not possess the capability to occupy a country with more than 170 million people, of whom at least 6 million are armed, with highly-trained armed forces and a terrain much different from that of Iraq – one more suited for protracted guerrilla and attrition warfare. Pakistan is a country that cannot be occupied militarily. However, Pakistan’s nuclear installations can be targeted using American airpower with the help of US satellites. Although, one may question US ability to locate and destroy each and every well-concealed mobile launcher in a mountainous country the size of Texas and twice the size of Iraq. In order to effectively counter this threat, Pakistan needs to invest heavily in airpower and high altitude air defence systems.

* Under the garb of “securing” Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, elements within the US establishment have proposed the “tagging” of Pakistani nuclear warheads. The idea is to electronically tag each warhead with a transmitting device that could be picked up by US military satellites.The tagging could also be done by traitors with the Pakistani Nuclear-Military personnel. The overt purpose being to prevent these warheads from failing into the hands of “terrorists” (an impossibility considering foolproof custodial controls and airtight security multilayering surrounding them). However, these electronic tags would also play the role of the proverbial Trojan Horse – allowing the US to track their exact movements with the help of the global positioning system (GPS), identify their locations at a given moment in time and, eventually, destroying them.

If the US does surprise attack, it will first try to neutralize the Pakistan Air Force and gain complete air dominance over Pakistan’s airspace, which it will achieve but at a high price. At the same time, it will target our nuclear weapons, TELs (transporters-erectors-launchers), etc. Once it has achieved total air superiority, it will begin targeting Pakistan’s strategic installations, nuclear reactors, defence industry, airbases, cantonments, weapons depots, etc. It may also send in special forces to take out or “secure” some of our nuclear weapons. However, the US would be faced with a major tactical obstacle – such as the one it faced while dealing with Iraqi Scud TELs in the 1991 US-Iraq War – it is impossible to locate all mobile launchers. This means Pakistan will still have the capability to launch quite a few nuclear missiles. This is also why it is all the more imperative for Pakistan to acquire submarine-launched nuclear weapons capability in order to guarantee first-strike survivability and counter-strike capability. 

Pakistan must develop a dynamic nuclear doctrine that is adaptable to the fluid geopolitical and strategic threat environment that envelops Pakistan. Currently, four major components of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine are that Pakistan may use nuclear weapons (i) if Pakistan is attacked with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (ii) if Pakistan’s nuclear capability is targeted using conventional or unconventional means; (iii) if Pakistan’s territorial integrity is threatened (i.e. India attacks Pakistan and occupies a large part of its territory); and (iv) when faced with an imminent threat to its nuclear capability, Pakistan may exercise the first strike option (or pre-emptive strike). Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who currently heads the National Command Authority’s Strategic Plans Division, has enumerated three additional India-specific triggering scenarios of deterrence failure that would (or could) lead to nuclear retaliation by Pakistan: (v) India destroys a large part of Pakistan’s Army or Air Force; (iv) India proceeds to economically strangulate Pakistan; and (vii) India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large-scale internal subversion in Pakistan (as it did in 1971 in East Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh).

A new dimension that needs to be added to Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is what we may call “collateral deterrence.” Under the doctrine of collateral deterrence, if a country, other than India, were to attack Pakistan using weapons of mass destruction or targets Pakistan’s nuclear capability using conventional or unconventional means, Pakistan would retaliate by using nuclear weapons against the aggressing state as well as India and Israel – the country that stands to gain most from such an action. Therefore, the targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear capability by a third country will have “collateral” consequences for India and Israel. Simply put, Pakistan will nuke India and Israel no matter who targets Pakistan’s nuclear capability. 

The doctrine of collateral deterrence is based on the premise that Pakistan, denuded and deprived of its nuclear capability, will be at the mercy of its enemies, in particularly India, and will cease to exist in the form in which it does today, if not altogether. Until it achieves a certain degree of economic strength, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will remain the key to its territorial integrity and sovereignty – indeed, to our very survival as an independent state. Any harm to our deterrent will have fatal consequences for Pakistan. Stripping Pakistan of its nuclear weapons would tantamount to inviting aggression. India will waste no time in attacking Pakistan with the intent of annexing Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan’s Northern Areas and hold Pakistan to nuclear blackmail. Having gained control of the source of our rivers, it will then use water as a weapon to keep Pakistan on its knees for the rest of its existence. At worst, Pakistan may, once again, be dismembered. Thus, India stands to be the greatest benefactor of a de-fanged Pakistan. Therefore, by the implementation of this doctrine, Pakistan will deny India the fruits of a collateral victory and prevent India from reaping the geopolitical and strategic benefits arising out of the ashes of a vanquished Pakistan. If Pakistan should cease to exist, so would India, for Pakistan may not be able to assure its own survival but it can assure the destruction of India. This is the collateral manifestation of the classic Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, appropriately acronymed “MAD.”

In the post-9/11 scenario, Pakistan is faced with a new geo-strategic milieu. We must wake up to a new reality: the greatest threat to Pakistan’s nuclear capability does not emanate from India, but from the United States and Israel. The pro-American elements within our political-military establishment are either myopic or seem with to be totally oblivious to the distant rumble of this gathering storm or are, like the proverbial ostrich, in a state of denial. With new geopolitical and strategic threats emerging from aggressive US/Israeli posturing, indeed pre-emptive military actions, against Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq in the present and Iran and Syria in the near future), the doctrine of collateral nuclear deterrence assumes a new and greater importance for Pakistan and ought to be enhanced and developed further to bring Israel within its ambit. There may be those who will question the wisdom of extending such a doctrine to Israel and thereby needlessly agitating Israel. Firstly, it will not be needless but aimed at deterring the US. Secondly, Israel has already entered Pakistan’s geopolitical threat environment without any provocation from Pakistan. By becoming the second-largest military supplier to India after Russia, Israel has deliberately adopted an anti-Pakistan posture. Israel threatened to take out Kahuta after its strike on Tammuz-1, Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 but wisely decided not execute its threat after being warned of Pakistani retaliation against its Dimona nuclear reactor. Since then, Israeli and Pakistani relations have been based on a mutual understanding that “you stay out of my neighborhood and I’ll stay out of yours.” Israel has shattered that understanding by militarily interfacing with India heavily and aiding the development of India’s nuclear, missile and military aviation programmes, its defence industries and, more recently, through the supply of US $3 billion worth of military equipment to India, including the Phalcon airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) – a strategic force multiplier. We also cannot remain oblivious to the possibility that one of the nuclear devices tested by India in May 1998 was an Israeli device. Therefore, there is no need for us to be apologetic about aiming one or two of our strategic missiles at Tel Aviv and Dimona because Israel has already carried out training exercises against a mock-up of Kahuta in the Negev Desert.

Therefore, what is proposed is that any conventional or unconventional attack on Pakistan’s nuclear capability, would invite nuclear retaliation against both India and Israel – irrespective of who the aggressor is. Thus, a US attack on Pakistan would entail “collateral” consequences for both India and Israel – both will have to pay for any US transgression against Pakistan. This would primarily be aimed at deterring the US from launching an attack on Pakistan since the consequences would be unacceptable to the US. Pakistan would not have the capability to defend itself against the US, but it would have the capability to fatally strike its ally, Israel, which is now under the effective range of Pakistan’s latest intermediate range ballistic missile – the Ghuari-III, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead up to a distance of 3,500 km (2,175 miles). The US should remember that it would require less than a dozen nuclear weapons to completely destroy Israel – a capability that Pakistan possesses. The consequences for Pakistan are irrelevant because, a priori, without nuclear weapons Pakistan would be finished anyway. If the price of neutralizing Pakistani nukes is the destruction of the State of Israel, then the US may not be willing to pay such a high price. Indeed, it would be foolish for the Americans or the Israelis to even contemplate a plan that could entail such adverse consequences for the State of Israel. However, the US, behaving like an irrational and rabid hyperpower, is capable of making strategic miscalculations as it has clearly done with the war on Iraq. This is what makes the scenario all the more dangerous.

This is where the effectiveness of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent comes in. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were not meant for display on Pakistan Day parades and for decorating roundabouts. The mere possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent if the ‘will’ to use them is lacking. Assurances to the effect that the use of nuclear weapons is “unthinkable” do not help Pakistan’s deterrence because it leads those who wish to do us harm into believing in the false notion that come the hour of reckoning, Pakistan will shrink from using them – an assumption that is both incorrect and highly dangerous. Deterrence is effective, indeed credible, only when the possession of nuclear weapons is complemented by the will to use such weapons in your defence. The absence or deflation of this ‘will’ renders the deterrent useless, invites aggression, increases the risk of full-scale war and, ultimately, results in nuclear conflagration. For Pakistan, how this “will factor” actually plays out, when push comes to shove, remains to be seen. However, what concerns us as a nation is whether we have the strength of conviction to “push the button” in the defence of Pakistan? Or will our survival instinct take over?

There are those who argue that the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan would tantamount to national suicide since, obviously, there will be nuclear retaliation. Well, the alternative is sovereign suicide. Without nuclear weapons, Pakistan will cease to exist in the long run. So if we’re going to die anyway, we might as well go down fighting and take a few of our enemies with us and be remembered as a brave and honourable nation rather than a meek and cowardly one. The US will attack Pakistan only if it believes that we will not dare use nuclear weapons because it would mean suicide for us. However, if the US feels that Pakistan has the resolve to retaliate with nukes without a care for the consequences that will ensure, it will not dare to attack Pakistan. It is the suicidal tendency that will save us in the end. The US will not attack us so long as it remains convinced that Pakistan will use nukes in retaliation because Pakistan has the capability to destroy Israel and inflict enough damage on India to weaken it against China for the next century. This will ruin the US grand strategy for the Middle East and South Asia. It’s simply not worth the risk – the stakes for the US are too high.

Pakistan must be ready to use nuclear weapons in its defence and it must make this policy known. Pakistan must not remain under any illusion that it will not, at some future point, become the target of this joint US/Israeli grand strategy to weaken, reshape and tame the Islamic World. We cannot afford to rely on US goodwill and assurances to the contrary. Our defence and security is in our own hands and not in the hands of any other country. We must, therefore, be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Pakistan is determined to protect its nuclear capability at all costs. Let it not be said that, come the hour of reckoning, we were not equal to the task.

 
Let those who bode ill for Pakistan not live under any illusion. If we go down, we will not go down alone. 
  •  

Need source link, please?

 

Source: http://www.pakdef.org/forum/user/53-rms-azam/

 

 This is article was given to Pakdef by the author

S.Q likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Retaliation for Pakistan's blockage of India's entry to the NSG?

US sanctions seven Pakistani entities

WASHINGTON: The US government has announced sanctions against seven Pakistani entities allegedly associated with the country’s missile programme, says an official notification.

The notification by the US Department of Commerce said that the entities added to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) list “have been determined by the US government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States”.

All seven have been placed on the entity list under the destination of Pakistan. They are identified as: (1) Ahad International, Suite 5-6, 2nd Floor, Empress Tower, Empress Road, Lahore, and 2nd Floor, Nomro Centre, Badami Bagh, Lahore; (2) Air Weapons Complex (AWC), AWC: E-5, Officers Colony, Wah Cantonment; (3) Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 726, G-11/2, Ibne-Sina Road, Islamabad; (4) Maritime Technology Complex (MTC), Plot 94, Karachi, and MTC System Division, PN Dockyard, Karachi; (5) National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), NESCOM Headquarter, Plot 94, Sector H-11/4, Islamabad; (6) New Auto Engineering (NAE), NAE: 72, Industrial Area, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi; and (7) Universal Tooling Services, a.k.a., the following three aliases: —Forward Design and Manufacturing; —MSM Enterprises; and —Technopak Engineering, Deen Plaza, 68/62, Adamjee Road, Saddar P.O. Box 1640, GPO Rawalpindi; G-7, Nimra Centre 7, Badami Bagh, Lahore; 31/B Faisal Town, Lahore, Punjab; and Model Town, HMC Road, Taxila.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1305487/us-sanctions-seven-pakistani-entities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Who really cares what US does anymore. It is a dying power responsible for genocides in many countries. The quicker Pakistan gets rid of all influence US has here the better it is for the country and its people. I use to think Obama would make a difference; and he turned out to even more fascist than boy George Bush. Bye, bye Obama - don't forget to close the door on your way out. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Who really cares what US does anymore. It is a dying power responsible for genocides in many countries. The quicker Pakistan gets rid of all influence US has here the better it is for the country and its people. I use to think Obama would make a difference; and he turned out to even more fascist than boy George Bush. Bye, bye Obama - don't forget to close the door on your way out. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Obama has been much worse to Pakistan, which is incredible considering his association with the country (he used to visit Karachi and had Pakistani friends before he became president) Generally, the Democrats have been worse and unfair to Pakistan in their obsession to court India. This could also be seen as another attempt by the Obama administration to complicate the Trump administration's future policy on Pakistan and other countries. The recent expelling of Russian diplomats comes to mind. He's been taking many disruptive moves lately as he prepares to exit office.

How does Pakistan even react to something like this? Does it has any real consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe these sanctions are nothing more than paperwork to please india. The reason is Pakistan's missile program does not depend on components imports from US or any other European nations. These days even the sophisticated manufacturing equipment can be obtained from China. There is no need to engage with US.

Abd-rehman Ali likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe these sanctions are nothing more than paperwork to please india. The reason is Pakistan's missile program does not depend on components imports from US or any other European nations. These days even the sophisticated manufacturing equipment can be obtained from China. There is no need to engage with US.

I share your views. Pakistan needs to be assertive and should start taking steps for every step taken against it. Pakistan's lack of strongly coming out against these sorts of hostility only invites more hostility. Really sad to see the embarrassing timidity of Pakistan's foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So India tests ICBM and Pakistan gets sanctions? Is someone worried we will get into the SLV business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Does any of our learned member know what is the significance of a nuclear gravity bomb? Does Pak have any plans on developing one? My personal opinion is Pak should develop one to be able to hit precise target with more accuracy and precision. This would enhance our capabilities manifolds.

Abd-rehman Ali likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pak does have 2-3 gravity bombs type.

 

You mean nuclear gravity bombs H Khan saahab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not sure what is so special and unique about this.  The nuclear gravity bomb or gravity nuclear bomb is the most basic design of a nuclear weapon.  In other words it is the "free fall" bomb.  Pakistan's nuclear program, and for that matter those of all other countries, started first with the development of gravity nuclear bombs and then other delivery models came about.

Sabre, H Khan and Abd-rehman Ali like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not sure what is so special and unique about this. The nuclear gravity bomb or gravity nuclear bomb is the most basic design of a nuclear weapon. In other words it is the "free fall" bomb. Pakistan's nuclear program, and for that matter those of all other countries, started first with the development of gravity nuclear bombs and then other delivery models came about.

Maybe the original post meant MOAB type gravity bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For what purpose?  The USAF has 12 of those on inventory.  To be very honest, one was deployed just because Trump wants to come across as a tough guy.  I am not sure entirely of the efficacy of such munitions besides making a big bang and being used for propaganda purpose.  They can afford to drop such bombs on the inhabitants of another country.  Does Pakistan want to be seen as dropping 12 ton bombs on its own population?  It would send a horrible message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For what purpose? The USAF has 12 of those on inventory. To be very honest, one was deployed just because Trump wants to come across as a tough guy. I am not sure entirely of the efficacy of such munitions besides making a big bang and being used for propaganda purpose. They can afford to drop such bombs on the inhabitants of another country. Does Pakistan want to be seen as dropping 12 ton bombs on its own population? It would send a horrible message.

Do you see any application of MOAB type munitions in deterring Cold Start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No, it would be a very costly weapon to use against fast moving forces.  Its akin to swatting a fly with a sledgehammer with impact (kill zone) being felt across a mile in all directions.  However usually when armour and infantry (mechanized in this case) move together, they purposely move across a wide frontage quite a few miles apart.  So why expose a slow C-130 aircraft in an environment buzzing with enemy aircraft and mobile air defence units to drop a 12 ton bomb that would not really slow down the advance?  A better use of the same amount of money would be in area denial munitions and cluster bombs with delayed fuses in the class of CBU-105s.  However the reason we don't see Pakistan going for the same is because of the indigenous manufacturing of the slightly older version of cluster munitions in Pakistan.  Indians however have acquired the 105s and those would be a threat to Pakistani formations.

 

For use against hardened positions of a conventional adversary, don't forget that PAF has a very healthy inventory of BLU-109 2000 pound bombs.  Those will defeat most conventionally built up/hardened defences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now