Pakistan Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile

[News_Editor]

Pakistan test-fires nuclear-capable ballistic missile < br />

2012-06-06 02:35:43 GMT+7 (ICT)

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- The Pakistani military on Tuesday said it has successfully test fired another short-range ballistic missile which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It comes just a week after Pakistan test-fired a surface-to-surface missile.

A military spokesperson said the Hatf-VII cruise missile, which is also known as Babur, has a range of approximately 700 kilometers (435 miles) and is capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads. It includes stealth capabilities and uses modern technology to enhance its precision.

"[The] Babur cruise missile is a low flying, terrain hugging missile with high maneuverability, pin-point accuracy and radar avoidance features," the spokesperson said in a statement. "It also incorporates the most modern cruise missile technology of Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching and Area Co-relation (DSMAC), which enhances its precision and effectiveness manifolds."

The military said the missile was launched from a multi-tube missile launch vehicle but provided no exact location. It said the test was witnessed by a number of senior military officials, scientists and engineers. Among those who witnessed the test was General Khalid Shameem Wynne, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.

"The test will consolidate Pakistan's strategic deterrence capability, and further strengthen national security," the spokesperson said in the statement, adding that both President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani welcomed the successful launch and congratulated the scientists and engineers involved.

Since independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, Pakistan and its neighbor India have fought four wars, including one undeclared war, as well as numerous border skirmishes and military stand-offs. The two countries were on the brink of nuclear conflict in 2002 over the disputed territory of Kashmir, but a ceasefire was agreed to in 2003 although violations still occur. Both nations frequently develop new missiles.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-06-06

[JUDAS]

Let's send them some more aide, they obviously need it to fund weapons development.

[Colin Yai]

Let's send them some more aide, they obviously need it to fund weapons development.

No Comment

[pakorn7]

I would want to live in the next town.

because these indian made stuff don't go very far.

Edited June 6, 2012 by pakorn7

[marquess]

If they didn't have Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan the US would be telling them that black is white and they would have no choice but to accept it. Balance of Power something that the Western nations don't want for obvious reasons.

[Colin Yai]

If they didn't have Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan the US would be telling them that black is white and they would have no choice but to accept it. Balance of Power something that the Western nations don't want for obvious reasons.

Pray inform me what are the "obvious reasons" ?

[marquess]

If they didn't have Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan the US would be telling them that black is white and they would have no choice but to accept it. Balance of Power something that the Western nations don't want for obvious reasons.

Pray inform me what are the "obvious reasons" ?

Western dominance both economic and military, had Pakistan not had Nuclear weapons, they would have been subjected to some kind of invasion with it came to the so called 'War on Terror' probably on the basis that they were harbouring members of the Taliban. Nuclear weapons level the field somewhat and make even the most arrogant think again and again before attempting anything rash. This is one of the reasons why the US and its Western allies are so intent on Iran not acquiring Nuclear capabilities. Once they have them they are no longer in a position to dominate the Middle East through their client state Israel (the only one with Nuclear weapons in the region). When one can strike with impunity ones rationality becomes more easily warped and atrocities and loss of life can be more easily justified in terms of the greater good (Iraq, Libya) When another state has the power to wipe you out too, then dialogue becomes a better option. After all what right does the West have to assume a dominant position the World? Military might makes right or at least so they have believed and anyone who disagrees with them and wishes to pursue the same rational is going to be opposed. So good on Pakistan for having the means to keep its independence.

[Colin Yai]

If they didn't have Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan the US would be telling them that black is white and they would have no choice but to accept it. Balance of Power something that the Western nations don't want for obvious reasons.

Pray inform me what are the "obvious reasons" ?

Western dominance both economic and military, had Pakistan not had Nuclear weapons, they would have been subjected to some kind of invasion with it came to the so called 'War on Terror' probably on the basis that they were harbouring members of the Taliban. Nuclear weapons level the field somewhat and make even the most arrogant think again and again before attempting anything rash. This is one of the reasons why the US and its Western allies are so intent on Iran not acquiring Nuclear capabilities. Once they have them they are no longer in a position to dominate the Middle East through their client state Israel (the only one with Nuclear weapons in the region). When one can strike with impunity ones rationality becomes more easily warped and atrocities and loss of life can be more easily justified in terms of the greater good (Iraq, Libya) When another state has the power to wipe you out too, then dialogue becomes a better option. After all what right does the West have to assume a dominant position the World? Military might makes right or at least so they have believed and anyone who disagrees with them and wishes to pursue the same rational is going to be opposed. So good on Pakistan for having the means to keep its independence.

Thanks for you answer Marquess ,however "Rational" is hardly how I would describe the Pakistani Nation, and as far as being Independent ,maybe you should check up on just how much Aid from the West they are receiving and as far as Pakistan Harboring the Taliban I see the US drones are quite busy wiping them out with only a few whimpers from the Pakistani Govt in denouncing them , in other words no drones ,no aid .http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/16/hamid-karzai-confronts-pakistan-leadership Edited June 6, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Ulysses G.]

Pakistan complaining about the "balance of power" not being level is like Charles Manson complaining because the judge did not give him unsupervised probation.

[Colin Yai]

Pakistan complaining about the "balance of power" not being level is like Charles Manson complaining because the judge did not give him unsupervised probation.

Ahh Yes a nice comparison

[Steely Dan]

Let's send them some more aide, they obviously need it to fund weapons development.

No Comment

No clapping now, you wouldn't want to offend them, such an advanced culture is obviously mature enough to own WMD's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18343090

[folium]

Pakistan complaining about the "balance of power" not being level is like Charles Manson complaining because the judge did not give him unsupervised probation.

Actually you could argue that Pakistan's approach is little different to Israel's nuclear weapon programme which is there to ensure a "balance of power" given the numerical superiority of its neighbours and other potential adversaries and as the ultimate deterrent to a potential existential threat.

Pakistan's nuclear programme (largely domestic but aided by China) began in 1972, and stemmed from a desire to match India's nuclear programme plus the massive impact of losing E. Pakistan in 1971 which together totally unbalanced the strategic relationship with India.

[folium]

Let's send them some more aide, they obviously need it to fund weapons development.

No Comment

No clapping now, you wouldn't want to offend them, such an advanced culture is obviously mature enough to own WMD's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-18343090

if you actually take a look at the US aid programme to Pakistan there has been about $20 billion worth of aid channeled into Pakistan since 2001 (though much never left the US as it was spent via US corporations supplying hardware) with 2/3 of the total being military aid, so actually US aid money has been funding their weapon development programmes in recent years, as it did for much of the Cold War as a strategic partner against communism.

As to the cheap shot re "advanced cultures" and possession of WMDs, it is probably fair to say that not a single member of that particular club can really preach about the morality of their own behaviour at the state level internationally or even within those countries.

Depending on your definition of what constitutes an advanced culture, Pakistan has been at the forefront of nuclear and missile design and innovation (hence their lucrative export business of the same), and their development of the Babur cruise missile mentioned in the OP has surprised many defence analysts with its capabilities.

Edited June 7, 2012 by folium

[Steely Dan]

Let's send them some more aide, they obviously need it to fund weapons development.

No Comment

No clapping now, you wouldn't want to offend them, such an advanced culture is obviously mature enough to own WMD's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-18343090

if you actually take a look at the US aid programme to Pakistan there has been about $20 billion worth of aid channeled into Pakistan since 2001 (though much never left the US as it was spent via US corporations supplying hardware) with 2/3 of the total being military aid, so actually US aid money has been funding their weapon development programmes in recent years, as it did for much of the Cold War as a strategic partner against communism.

As to the cheap shot re "advanced cultures" and possession of WMDs, it is probably fair to say that not a single member of that particular club can really preach about the morality of their own behaviour at the state level internationally or even within those countries.

Depending on your definition of what constitutes an advanced culture, Pakistan has been at the forefront of nuclear and missile design and innovation (hence their lucrative export business of the same), and their development of the Babur cruise missile mentioned in the OP has surprised many defence analysts with its capabilities.

I don't doubt their capabilities regarding nuclear weapons and guidance systems, that is exactly my point though, Pakistan suffers from partial agency capture of it's intelligence services by groups who take their foreign and domestic policy from the 7th century manual of a dessert warrior; should the regime ever fall a la Iran we have a nightmare scenario.

[geriatrickid]

The Pakistani missiles are tools of international peace and are helping to propel Pakistan's development forward. I anticipate that any day now, Pakistan will join the 12th century.

[Colin Yai]

Dan my good friend may I remind you that "real warriors ' do not put their children and women in the "firing line"(human shields) nor do they brainwash young kids (suicide bombers) to make the supreme sacrifice for their "cause" whilst garnering tens of millions from the very people (the Infidel" they seek to annihilate. cos in many cases the Taliban and many Pakistani's are "as one"

Edited June 7, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

The Pakistani missiles are tools of international peace and are helping to propel Pakistan's development forward. I anticipate that any day now, Pakistan will join the 12th century.

[LucidLucifer]

The Pakistani missiles are tools of international peace and are helping to propel Pakistan's development forward. I anticipate that any day now, Pakistan will join the 12th century.

The best post I have read on here for quite some time.....I applaud you...

[Colin Yai]

The Pakistani missiles are tools of international peace and are helping to propel Pakistan's development forward. I anticipate that any day now, Pakistan will join the 12th century.

The best post I have read on here for quite some time.....I applaud you...

Yeah Lucid , I,m with you all the way on GK's post,short ,sweet ,and very much to the point ,just a shame It may be viewed by some as "racist", but then again in these politically correct times the plain truth often is ain't it Edited June 7, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-18350766 Its becoming increasingly obvious that the USA does not trust Pakistan any more (if it ever did) the Bin Laden raid proved this quite conclusively IMHO ,maybe with this Missile launch they are "flexing their muscles" a bit to show the world they are far from helpless, the big question is who do they see as a threat?, I hardly think the US would be impressed though with this latest "roman candle" Edited June 8, 2012 by Colin Yai

[folium]

Pakistan suffers from partial agency capture of it's intelligence services by groups who take their foreign and domestic policy from the 7th century manual of a dessert warrior; should the regime ever fall a la Iran we have a nightmare scenario.

Would that be Tiramisu the Terrible or even the mighty Baklava?

[folium]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-18350766 Its becoming increasingly obvious that the USA does not trust Pakistan any more (if it ever did) the Bin Laden raid proved this quite conclusively IMHO ,maybe with this Missile launch they are "flexing their muscles" a bit to show the world they are far from helpless, the big question is who do they see as a threat?, I hardly think the US would be impressed though with this latest "roman candle"

The US/Pakistan relationship hinges on who needs who the most at the moment, but it is indeed very messy. China has become Pakistan's key ally as the US switches to backing India.

Who does Pakistan see as a threat? A bloody partition in 1947, 4 wars (1947, 1965, 1971 & 1999), mutual ongoing support for insurgents, and a near nuclear war in 2001 make India a very real threat.

[Colin Yai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-18350766 Its becoming increasingly obvious that the USA does not trust Pakistan any more (if it ever did) the Bin Laden raid proved this quite conclusively IMHO ,maybe with this Missile launch they are "flexing their muscles" a bit to show the world they are far from helpless, the big question is who do they see as a threat?, I hardly think the US would be impressed though with this latest "roman candle"

The US/Pakistan relationship hinges on who needs who the most at the moment, but it is indeed very messy. China has become Pakistan's key ally as the US switches to backing India.

Who does Pakistan see as a threat? A bloody partition in 1947, 4 wars (1947, 1965, 1971 & 1999), mutual ongoing support for insurgents, and a near nuclear war in 2001 make India a very real threat.

Don't you think that India's a wee bit to close to start anything nuclear? ,anyway India's too busy making money to start anything ,and what about the tiger population if it "kicks off"?

[folium]

cos in many cases the Taliban and many Pakistani's are "as one"

And for that the Brits are largely responsible as the 1893 Durand Line split the Pushtuns (who make up the vast majority of Taliban and shown in green on the map below) between what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. The FATA of NW Pakistan have always been a law unto themselves and have never really been centrally governed in colonial times or since. Drawing arbitrary lines on maps causes endless issues. Afghanistan is just a more extreme example of the partition of Ireland in 1922, with a neighbouring country becoming a key base/sanctuary for terrorists.

[Colin Yai]

Thanks for the History Lesson Folium, It would appear its your specialist subject ,but IMHO what happened 100 years ago is hardly applicable today in this particular case ,time to move on and look at today,s problem

[folium]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-18350766 Its becoming increasingly obvious that the USA does not trust Pakistan any more (if it ever did) the Bin Laden raid proved this quite conclusively IMHO ,maybe with this Missile launch they are "flexing their muscles" a bit to show the world they are far from helpless, the big question is who do they see as a threat?, I hardly think the US would be impressed though with this latest "roman candle"

The US/Pakistan relationship hinges on who needs who the most at the moment, but it is indeed very messy. China has become Pakistan's key ally as the US switches to backing India.

Who does Pakistan see as a threat? A bloody partition in 1947, 4 wars (1947, 1965, 1971 & 1999), mutual ongoing support for insurgents, and a near nuclear war in 2001 make India a very real threat.

Don't you think that India's a wee bit to close to start anything nuclear? ,anyway India's too busy making money to start anything ,and what about the tiger population if it "kicks off"?

Both sides are very serious about this and 2001 was a very near miss in terms of an exchange of nuclear weapons. Both sides have extensive tactical nuclear weapons like the Babur cruise missile plus larger devices.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistans-short-range-ballistic-missile-nasr-is-a-matter-of-concern-for-india/0/140087.html

For a scary assessment of nuclear scenarios read this:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp

Re the 2001 near miss:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%932002_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff

[folium]

Thanks for the History Lesson Folium, It would appear its your specialist subject ,but IMHO what happened 100 years ago is hardly applicable today in this particular case ,time to move on and look at today,s problem

Today's problems are a direct result of arbitrary lines drawn on maps by foreigners with very different agendas to the folks actually on the ground! Understanding what is going on today in Afghanistan/Pakistan needs an understanding of it s historical context.

[Colin Yai]

Thanks for the History Lesson Folium, It would appear its your specialist subject ,but IMHO what happened 100 years ago is hardly applicable today in this particular case ,time to move on and look at today,s problem

Today's problems are a direct result of arbitrary lines drawn on maps by foreigners with very different agendas to the folks actually on the ground! Understanding what is going on today in Afghanistan/Pakistan needs an understanding of it s historical context.

Understanding? IMHO I don't think past history comes into the Pakistani's who favour terrorism or the Talibans Mindset, so its not just an Afghan or Pakistan problem .Per Se .,as the thousands of civilian casualty's on both sides will testify . Edited June 8, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Scott]

Thank you for the brief history lesson. It helps to put the problem in perspective and provides a context for why the situation is so complicated.

(An off-topic post has been deleted).

Edited June 8, 2012 by Scott

[koheesti]

If they didn't have Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan the US would be telling them that black is white and they would have no choice but to accept it. Balance of Power something that the Western nations don't want for obvious reasons.

The obvious part here is that Pakistan is unstable and unstable countries that might at anytime be taken over by Islamic nutjobs should not have nuclear weapons.

Besides, Balance of Power isn't really balanced when one side really doesn't want to use them (like the USA or USSR during the Cold War) and the other side is psychotic enough to use them (Pakistan, Iran, North Korea).