Too big as to fit onto the TD rockets.Originally Posted by Swift Sword
They went too far in their first attempt. Instead of trying to produce a nuke that works regardless of size, they went for one that could fit onto the TDs. The result was less than credible which meant that their entire theoritical background on the device is wrong. It was not a case of they know where they went wrong. It was a case of they thought it out all wrong ... which means that they were back to square one.
Nevertheless, there has been no intel on even zero yield testing which is a minimum they must do.
So, I cannot accept at face value the NKs claims that they are a nuclear weapons state.
Chimo
Sir,
Yes, I agree with that statement. I figure that in the big picture, it is control of the fuel cycle that is the biggest hurdle as a successful test or weaponization could be achieved at less expense and complexity as you pointed out.
It is the availability of fuel that leads me to conclude that the program itself is a credible effort in the general direction even if they have near term weaponization issues.
Have a good evening.
William
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
Not to forget that AQ Khan nexus had a big role in N.Korea's nuclear programme..that coming from a country which has a proven nuclear capability and has successfully mated nuclear warheads onto their medium-range missiles.....you;ve a big reason to be worried..the chances of it being a "dud" is very slim...
AQ Khan had no role in NK nukes. Pak nukes are uranium based. The NK nukes and claims are plutonium based. That tossed your theory right there.
Their tests were also duds and it would seemed that they knew that they had a problem with their nukes from 1994 (their denied request to test another nuke at Lop Nor) onwards but have not managed to correct them.
No evidence of that whatsoever. The last claim by General Musharraf was that these were F-16 delivered.
I would bet heavily against you.
Chimo
Wrong!..Pakistan has plutonium bombs too together with their Uranium tech
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons
With Chinese assistance, Pakistan built the 40 MWt (megawatt thermal) Khusab research reactor at Joharabad, and in April 1998, Pakistan announced that the reactor was operational. According to public statements made by US officials, this unsafeguarded heavy water reactor generates an estimated 8-10 kilotons of weapons grade plutonium per year, which is enough for one to two nuclear weapons. Khusab's plutonium production capacity could allow Pakistan to develop lighter nuclear warheads that would be easier to deliver with a ballistic missile.
A highly debated topic.. no conclusive evidence on them being a success or a dud...Unless you've taken samples off the air yourself after the testTheir tests were also duds and it would seemed that they knew that they had a problem with their nukes from 1994 (their denied request to test another nuke at Lop Nor) onwards but have not managed to correct them.
And wrong Again!No evidence of that whatsoever. The last claim by General Musharraf was that these were F-16 delivered.
I would bet heavily against you.
Pak has a lot of nuclear-capable missiles of varying ranges plus the warheads to boot. wjhy do you think India is heavily spending on a missile defence shield ? - We wouldn't make such a big deal abt a conventional missle attack
CDI Nuclear Issues Area - Nuclear Weapons Database: Pakistan's Nuclear Delivery Systems
The f-16s can also be used - but its impossible that US would allow its planes to be used if at all a nuclear strike against India is inevitable
This is a technical question. What process does it involve to dispose of 3000 nuclear bombs without the parts being stolen ?
Let me guess. You just read the headlines and not the open source intel on these things.
The Pak nukes have been identified as modified CHIC-4 devices - all Chinese uranium designs. There has been no intel that the Chinese has passed on Pu devices to Pakistan. In fact, the AQ Khan documents obtained through Switzerland and Lybia are all uranium devices. You're grasping.
As for your link, the only thing it says about a possible Pu device was that an air sample contained Pu which is hotly contested by other laboratories. Since you have not done research on this, let me clue you in. The one air sample was corrupted by LA Labs and could not be further used to identify the source of that Pu. However, in 1998, Pakistan did not have enough Pu for a nuke which lead to one of two conclusions - that this was a Uranium boosted device ... or the more likely explaination, the air sample drifted in from India's own test.
However, let's consider the timeline. AQ Khan was under house arrest Feb, 2004. The NKs tested their nuke Oct, 2006. Their last TD fireball was this year. So, in other words, AQ Khan's help was worth didly squat.
In 1994, the Chinese has refused to test a nuke for Pakistan to "correct" a few errors. The sesmic data from 1998 do not correspond to Pakistani claims and this is from several sources from Japan to Russia to the US. Given the fact that these are proven data collections (correctly measuring American, Russian, Chinese, British, and French nuclear tests ... And Earthquakes in Pakistan and India), it is highly doubtful that the Pakistani claims are legit.
Nuclear capable missiles and nuclear mated missiles are two different things. The Pakistanis has yet to test a missile warhead mounted fuse, be it impact or airburst. Such testing is required in order to mount a nuke. Thus far, none of the missile tests have ever included a fuse test ... unless the Chinese also passed on this but highly doubtful since the Chinese long past has gone off uranium nukes.
Also, I suspect that you do not know that the Chinese themselves have moved to a salvo conventional launch to replace nuclear first strikes. So, the mere fact that the Pakistanis are buying and building such missiles do not mean that they are meant to be nuclear delivery platforms. In fact, far from it. A salvo of 3-5 500lb bombs on a TEL site would have the same effect as a nuke.
Like Russia won't allow India to use BACKFIREs in nuclear delivery role?
I doubt the F-16s were even used ever in that role. We have no evidence of any nuclear delivery training. In fact, we don't have any evidence of any nuclear delivery training by missile or planes but the fact remains there has been one official claim and one official claim only of a nuclear delivery platform and that is the F-16.
Either way, there is absolutely no evidence that Pakistan helped the North Korean nuclear weapons program in anyway. The North Korean device is strictly home grown. There is no help from Pakistan, especially since Pakistan never tested a Pu device whatsoever.
You're gasping if you think Pakistan helped North Korea to become a nuclear weapons state.
Or if Pakistan did help, then she is as inept at Pu design as Kim is.
Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Apr 09, at 21:20.
Chimo
I don't think that anything ever came of the Indian Russian Backfire deal, did it?
Still awaiting the final signature for the go ahead as far as I know.
Chimo
may never happen..strategic bombers carrying nukes doesn't seem to fit into India's overall doctrine...its mostly based on missiles carrying em- land,sea....
The TU-22M is a nuclear capable, naval attack aircraft. Under the NPT, as long as Russia (or the US in the case of the F-16 to Pakistan) don't supply the nukes or any related nuclear weapons technology, ie nuclear fire controls, there is nothing stopping Moscow nor Washington from supplying systems that can be of dual use.
This, however, does not stop India or Pakistan from installing their own nukes and related nuclear weapons technology.
Chimo
We know from news report that N Korea threatens to have another nuclear test unless the UN Security Council apologises, which is very unlikely.
On the one hand, a senior Obama admin says this test is likely. But then the China Foreign Ministry spokesman says this is just a conjecture.
So what next?
US official expects North Korean nuclear test
China: Nuclear Test Might Not Happen1 May WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior Obama administration official says he expects that North Korea will test a nuclear weapon before it is forced back to international disarmament negotiations.
U.S. President Barack Obama's coordinator for weapons of mass destruction policy, Gary Samore, said Friday that North Korea wants to divide the five other countries in the nuclear talks. ....
30 Apr China yesterday spurned claims that North Korea might carry out a second nuclear test following the imposition of U.N. Security Council sanctions, saying that “It is mere conjecture.” ...
Last edited by Merlin; 03 May 09, at 03:49.
What is Pakistan doing? This is dangerous.
Apparently the Pakistan Army still cannot get out of the age old mentality that their main task is to prepare for war with India.
Pakistan nuclear projects raise US fears
3 May [Guardian] Pakistan is continuing to expand its nuclear bomb-making facilities despite growing international concern that advancing Islamist extremists could overrun one or more of its atomic weapons plants or seize sufficient radioactive material to make a dirty bomb, US nuclear experts and former officials say.
David Albright, previously a senior weapons inspector for the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Iraq, said commercial satellite photos showed two plutonium-producing reactors were nearing completion at Khushab, about 160 miles south-west of the capital, Islamabad. ....
Albright warned that the continuing development of Pakistan's atomic weapons programme could trigger a renewed nuclear arms race with India. But he suggested a more immediate threat to nuclear security arose from recent territorial advances in north-west Pakistan by indigenous Taliban and foreign jihadi forces opposed to the Pakistani government and its American and British allies. ....
The Khushab reactors are situated on the border of Punjab and North-West Frontier province, the scene of heavy fighting between Taliban and government forces. Another allegedly vulnerable facility is the Gadwal uranium enrichment plant, less than 60 miles south of Buner district, where some of the fiercest clashes have taken place in recent days.
A suicide bomber blew himself up outside the Kamra air weapons complex near Gadwal in December 2007, injuring several people.
Uncertainty has long surrounded Pakistan's nuclear stockpile. The country is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the comprehensive test ban treaty. Nor has it submitted its nuclear facilities to international inspection since joining the nuclear club in 1998, when it detonated five nuclear devices. Pakistan is currently estimated to have about 200 atomic bombs. ...
The warnings about Pakistan's nuclear weapons come ahead of a summit meeting in Washington this week between Obama, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. ...
This is quite a breakthrough.
Nuclear talks get first breakthrough in 10 years
UNITED NATIONS, May 6 (Reuters) - Delegates meeting on the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty struck their first agreement on the anti-nuclear arms pact in a decade on Wednesday, which diplomats said was largely due to U.S. President Barack Obama.
Three days into a two-week meeting on the landmark arms control agreement, delegates from its 189 signatories agreed on an agenda for a major conference next year, where member states hope to adopt an action plan to overhaul the treaty. ....
NPT signatories have tried for years to overcome sharp divisions, with developing countries complaining that the big nuclear powers have reneged on obligations to disarm while denying them access to nuclear technology.
The last NPT review conference in 2005 descended into procedural bickering and accomplished nothing. ....
DISARMAMENT PLEDGES
The agenda agreed on Wednesday includes a review of disarmament commitments made by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia in 1995 and 2000. It also includes a discussion of "nuclear-weapons-free-zones" -- which diplomats said would mainly be about Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal.
The disarmament commitments have been very divisive in recent years after former President George W. Bush decided he was not bound by those pledges and insisted they be dropped from the agenda. The French supported that position.
"The Obama administration did an about-face and agreed to bring those commitments back on the agenda," a diplomat said, asking not to be be named. "The French were still trying to block it but gave in overnight when they realized they were alone and isolated."
Western diplomats said they were worried that Egypt and Iran would keep trying to divide the conference by focusing on Israel. But they said they were pleased that Tehran and Cairo were not finding it so easy now to divide signatories. ....
I am extremely pleasantly surprised.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: