It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan more of a nuclear threat to Israel than Iran

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Was reading an article on BBC and just came across this diagram of nuclear envelopes:



Courtesy BBC

Pakistan can easily lob a few nukes at Israel esp if they reduce the warhead size and yield. Pakistan's views on Israel do not differ much from those of Iran.

Israel should put more importance on a weaponised N-state as compared to one that 'may' turn nuclear a decade or so down the line.

Your thoughts?

EDIT: Another Pak Missile?






[edit on 5-12-2006 by Daedalus3]




posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Pakistan hasnt threatened to wipe israel out of existance and they have a more pressing enemy with india.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Not explicitly, but Pakistan like all other arab states strives for an 'Israel-free' Middle east.
And this threatening bit from Iran is just recent media-hype.
Did Iraq 'explicitly' threaten to wipe out Israel before the Osirak Operation in 82?

Iraq was a US ally then(as Pakistan is now) and infact was involved in an all out war with Iran at the time.
That didn't stop Israel from recognising the threat and eventually responding to it.

Similarly Paksitan's enemity with India is not a nuclear dampner from Israel's security point of view.
Not that Israel can do much to neutralise Pakistan's N-capability;though I wonder if this threat is a part of their longterm-strategic planning, and if so what they're planning to do about it.

I'm just trying to point out that the threat is as relevant as any other if not more.


ape

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by daedalus3
Pakistan's views on Israel do not differ much from those of Iran.


i suggest doing more research about pakistans history before making a statement like that, they are part of the few middle eastern countries that have recognized israel openly something that many of those countries refuse to do.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I suggest you do a bit of research on me before you quote me.
My knowledge on Pakistan isn't as lame as you make it out to be.
I am not talking about the recognition of Israel by Pakistan.
I am talking about the relations between Pakistan and Israel, and with what threat perceptions they have viewed each other in the past, do so now and will in the future
Gosh even Iraq 'recognised' Israel before Osirak.

Btw Pakistan is not a 'Middle East Country'..


ape

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
whatever same geographic location, also they dont openly threaten israel and openly recognising israel AND IT'S RIGHT TO EXIST is breaking rank from alot of those muslim countries.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Pakistan hasnt threatened to wipe israel out of existance and they have a more pressing enemy with india.


see my sig - its unfortunately obvious that many people do not understand what was said , only wahat was reported (mistakenly) by the mass media



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
IMO the only way Pakistan poses a threat to Israel is if Msharraf goes down and the jihadis take over, then we are ALL in deep S. Currently however Pakistan is VERY unlikely to do anything to Israel, but with Iran on the other hand you never know...


ape

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
uhm thats a bunch of crap you might wanna change your sig, this guy constantly CONSTANTLY slanders israel and threatens them saying they need to be wiped out. He not only has said it more than once,twice or thrice he is supporting terror on a grand scale and destablising not only lebenon he is working in iraq and chechnia. If he keep this up he is going to see tehran get hit with a nuke tipped with the star of david.

you might wanna note on the crack down of free speech in iran and the crack down of moderates not only in education but in politics before trying to justify this loon.

westpoint is right, musharaff keeps the jihad in check with force if he falls and they take over I really dont know what would happen, Hopefully things stay stable but I doubt it, jihadist care nothing about civilians and will gladly sacrifice a country in the name of allah by shooting a nuke off knowing full well what retaliation would be.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
whatever same geographic location, also they dont openly threaten israel and openly recognising israel AND IT'S RIGHT TO EXIST is breaking rank from alot of those muslim countries.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ape]


Are you in your sum experience on ats especially on the weaps forum telling me that that is the sole license for a nuclear threat?
That if a country 'recognises' Israel then it is NOT a threat?
Anyways.. this doesn't make sense to discuss this here..
Its the Israelis who need to(and have already) made their judgement on the nuclear weapons status of Pakistan.
I thought I had a legitimate audience to discuss the same but its just a bunch iran-brainwashed blokes in getting..

Not the same geographic location either..
look up a map and do your self a favour..
Iran is almost 5 years from even getting a nuclear weapon, let alone operationalising it on a fool proof launch platform.
Pakistan can lob one in under 6 hours from the go-ahead..
Want to read up on Israeli and Pakistani foreign relations?
go ahead.. do that too..
Musharraf is not going to be there forever..
And he does NOT control the entire Pakistani armed forces.
WE hope he does but obviously he doesn't..



[edit on 9-12-2006 by Daedalus3]


ape

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
you are the one getting out of line taking shots me at me, first of all why dont you use some logic and recognise that pakistan is only a threat if musharaff falls something you did not highlight on at all, you just stated that pakistan has the same views as iran WHICH IS FALSE and if they are a threat to israel with nuclear weapons and I answered and will do so again...

NO, they are not a threat because musharaff is somewhat stable and would recognise that MAD would come into play, israel has SSBN's how many SSBN's does pakistan have? full retaliation infact I think israel would wipe out pakistan and still exist, no way would they get caught off guard.

my whole opinion is based on what you presented in your first post, I quoted only what you said and you did not highlight wether or not you meant if the jihadist take over so I based my reponse on musharaffs leadership.


en.wikipedia.org...:GreaterMiddleEast2.png pakistan is apart of the 'greater' middle east and ends with pakistan, I dont care what excuse you give me this is documented I suggest you do some reading.



[edit on 9-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
you are the one getting out of line taking shots me at me, first of all why dont you use some logic and recognise that pakistan is only a threat if musharaff falls something you did not highlight on at all, you just stated that pakistan has the same views as iran WHICH IS FALSE and if they are a threat to israel with nuclear weapons and I answered and will do so again...

wrong..
You said I should do more research on Pakistan. I felt that was unfounded and irrelevant esp since you didn't know how much I knew or didn't about Pakistan.
Musharraf is NOT Pakistan.. Pakistan POLICY is Pakistan. It would suit you to do a bit more research on Pakistani policy vis-a-vis Israel..
Here's an appiteser:
A large majority of the a2a kills during the Yom Kippur wars and indeed wars leading up to it by non-israeli aircraft AGAINST Israeli is by PAF pilots outsourced to various middle eastern airforces. Yes, Pakistan overtly supported the anti Israel coalition during these wars.



my whole opinion is based on what you presented in your first post, I quoted only what you said and you did not highlight wether or not you meant if the jihadist take over so I based my reponse on musharaffs leadership.


Musharraf operates on a strategic roadmap laid out for Pakistan and the only deviations from this roadmap has been the severance of ties with the taliban. All other primary objectives are unchanged.Infact Musharraf was instrumental in carving out this map for the better part of the last decade; if you would like, see how Israel fits into this roadmap
Agreed Pakistan is not as vocal as Iran is w.r.t. its views on Israel. That doesn't change anything.

And a good example is Osirak. Israeli judgement on that operation showed that it recognised a threat from a US ALLY and engaged that threat even though the threat was not imminent at the time. Iraq was NOT a radical Muslim state when Osirak happened. It was probably one of the most secular outfits in the middle east at the time. Also it showed no 'open' and immediate hostitlity to Israel, esp since it was involved in an all-out war with Iran.
Some people need to look beyond the belief that anti-israelism is only islam-radicalism driven.



en.wikipedia.org...:GreaterMiddleEast2.png pakistan is apart of the 'greater' middle east and ends with pakistan, I dont care what excuse you give me this is documented I suggest you do some reading.


I wouldn't rob you of that:

The term 'Greater Middle East' is not coined on geographical proximities or similarities. I'm sure you know that.
The collective term is grouping countries on an other marker:
A marker introduced by none other than :


This expanded term was introduced in the summer of 2004 at a G8 summit by U.S. President George W. Bush[citation needed] as part of a proposal for sweeping change in the way the West deals with the Middle East. This initiative is aimed at the Muslim world in the region and promoted heavily by neoconservative think tanks such as Project for the New American Century.
Your Source



It includes countries like Mauritiana, yes Mauritiana. Mairitiana a part of the middle east: Why? Because the grouping factor here is not geography, but religion.
:down:
Then I thought, if we're talking religious profiling of nations than why not include India as well? After all India has more muslims than any other 'greater middle eastern' nation..

Sure enough:
(from your source again)


Occasionally North India is also included because of the role Islam and Muslim culture plays there.


Whoever wrote that wiki doesn't know that the muslim presence in central and south India is also just as significant.

Here's a bit about the this 'greater middle east' eating into the CARS as well:



Various Central Asian countries and the lower Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia) are sometimes also included


Infact if you're looking for the 'greater middle east' then you might as well use this definition. If you include India, you can contiguously extend all the way to Indonesia: the state with the highest muslim population in the world.

So there: your greater middle east is nothing but neo-con redraw attempt of world map. We who leave in this region think otherwise, thank you.

ok back to topic:




NO, they are not a threat because musharaff is somewhat stable and would recognise that MAD would come into play, israel has SSBN's how many SSBN's does pakistan have? full retaliation infact I think israel would wipe out pakistan and still exist, no way would they get caught off guard.



Israeli SSBNs from a peripheral google search here:
Please share some info with us on these 'Israeli SSBNs'.
While you're at it, take a look at the publicised and documented n-weapons arsenal and delivery systems possessed by Pakistan as of today.

The only thing that even comes close to your Israeli SSBNs is the speculation that the new Dolphin class SSKs(note: not SSBNs) to be obtained by Israel will have a cruise missile capability. This capability can possibly take on a nuclear avaatar.
Now what kind of nuclear cruise missiles IF at all any:

1) Possibly nuclear-tipped Harpoons? That would severely limit the capabilities only to the 'real' middle east. A second strike on Pakistan using a SSKs would require it to come all the way down to the Arabian Sea. Also these are ASCMs and wouldhave to be converted to LACMs.

2)Popeye-Turbo? Again even the optimistic estimates limit it to under 300km. Not much better than the harpoons, in terms of reach.

3)Nuclear-tipped long-range BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles would be a better bet. Range would be about 1500km and LACM capability would be inherent. I believe there are some rumors that Israel tested this in 2000 sometime in the Indian Ocean. Unsustantiated but lets give it the benefit of the doubt.
Lets say they conceivably can fit SLCMs onto those Dolphins with nuclear warheads. What kind of payload/yield capability would these LACMs have?

Again one must optimistically assume that Israel has mastered the art of warhead minaturisation, to the extent that they can fit these onto SLCMs(Only the elite N weapons states have this capability).

A 200KT W-80 type warhead onto each missile would be the wildest outer estimate of such a capability. Again the thermonuclear capability of Israel is also highly unlikely; they are perceived to only possess boosted fision devices.
It is ONLY in this BGM 109 SLCM+W-80 type 200KT+Dolphin SSK scenario that Israel can possibly concieve a MAD capable second strike ability with Pakistan. And that too only if they are able to succesfully use atleast 5 of these.
Too many ifs for me.

Pakistan on the other hand needs a single(maybe a couple)5-15KT warheads
to decimate Israel.
Israel does have the upper hand with respect to ABM defenses, however.


ape

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
that's fine you have your own opinion about the 'greater middleast' but the record still does stand.

IMO they are hardly a threat to each other unless a jihadist take over happens, but even so India is in closer proximity and would probably be the first priority.

this is an interesting read skeptically.org...

and so is this www.cdi.org...&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm

israel right now has the upperhand in pakistan



also thanks for the correction the SSBN was an error.


I was not trying to offend you I was simply replying to your post, you didn't highlight anything you simply said



Pakistan can easily lob a few nukes at Israel esp if they reduce the warhead size and yield. Pakistan's views on Israel do not differ much from those of Iran.


and I responded, pakistan is not in the same boat as iran, iranians actions have isolated them in that region to a degree and pakistan has taken a different route in hopes for progression, so with all due respect the views do differ and the same goes for iran, the leadership in tehran wants nothing to do with israel yet iran has a decent size jewish population and not all iranians want the destruction of israel, In pakistan the leadership has taken steps for a relationship with israel yet the populus views on israel differ to a degree which im aware of.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
agreed..
lets leave it at a communication gap of sorts..


Originally posted by ape
IMO they are hardly a threat to each other unless a jihadist take over happens, but even so India is in closer proximity and would probably be the first priority.


Possibly, but interestingly, Pakistan does not have MAD with India..
So in terms of longevity, Pakistan would not want to lob a pre-emptive weapon at India unless it was assured of losing its total sovereignity..
Israel on the other hand has limited second strike capability(except for the best case scenario on the possible usage of dolphin SSKs)..
Hence for a jehadist govt IMHO Israel would be a safer bet..Retaliation by any forces after such a strike would be delayed at best.
Retaliation from India on the other hand would be swift and total nuclear annihilation.


ape

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
yeah i agree, the way i'm looking at it is if pakistan is going to start a nuke fight they are not going to choose a country such as israel thats so far away causing damage but not as much damage as they would do to india who is right there next to them. If the jihadist are going to go out in a blaze of glory they are going to try and do as much damage as possible and try to be as accurate as possible.

IMO israel would wipe them out about as much as india would, im pretty sure israel is already readin the writing on the wall in regards to iran and they know full well the consequences of a jihadist takes over of pakistan, they should already have upgraded the dolphins to hit pakistan. these radical muslims hate hindus about as much as jews.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
wow..

(*snip*)



Mod Edit: Inappropriate off-topic remark removed.
Read this!

[edit on 2006/12/24 by Hellmutt]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
glad you feel at home vk_man..



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Pakistan would only be a direct threat to Israel and the West if its government somehow comes under the control of radical Islamists. I kind of doubt that will happen since both democratically elected governments and military dictatorships there haven't really shown the desire to do that.

I think a much more pertinent threat would be someone inside the government who sympathizes with such goals leaking nuclear information and materials to terrorists.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
There is no government..
If any general in the army can muster up enough regional core commander support to oust Musharraf; then that general will be the leader..
The problem is people gauge Pakistani mindset(both civilian and military) by generalising the mindset of Musharraf. Musharraf is just the man of the hour, and he is playing to American pressure. If the Americans 'unshackle' him or if he believes that alignment with the US is not beneficial for Pakistan, then he will
go his own way. Also if he's overthrown by another general, then its all up for grabs anyways..
If Musharraf can survive in his pseudo-presidential role past 2010, then things will be smoother. But no as far as I know, no Pakistani militayr dictator has been able to stay in power that long. Moreover, the return to democracy will expose the system to powerful islamic religious parties who have gained immense public support through the years since 9/11. So we have a time-bomb ticking away here, but the problem is nobody's looking beyond Musharraf. He has no heir-apparent either.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
G'day all,

Yes, I agree with some of you and have stated the very same thing in the past about this very topic in different thread-

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

titled - "What if there was a terrorist coup in Pakistan?"

The bottom line that I conclude is that Pakistan is the one place that if things go the wrong way can set off a very quick chain of events that have a high possibility of not only bringing in a muslim caliphate in mid-east/asia but also pose a very real threat to Israel and other allied forces in the area.

I recommend you refer to the above link as my input in conjuction to this current thread.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join