Latest news with #Ghaznavi
News18
11-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Why Pakistan's Army, ISI & Leadership Threatened India With Nuclear Weapons
Last Updated: As the May 10 ceasefire ended the conflict, News18 spoke to defence and government sources on what the threats mean tanWhile India showed its might in both defence and attack during the 100-hour conflict which started on May 7, Pakistan, be it the Army, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or leadership, kept threatening India with nuclear weapons. As India vowed justice after the April 22 Pahalgam massacre, defence minister Khwaja Asif had threatened India saying that if it dared to attack Pakistan, no one would survive. Pakistan Minister Hanif Abbasi had threatened nuclear retaliation, warning that Islamabad's stockpile — Ghori, Shaheen, and Ghaznavi missiles along with 130 nuclear warheads — has been kept 'only for India." India responded to Pahalgam with Operation Sindoor, precision airstrikes on nine terror hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), on May 7. Pakistan kept provoking India, only to be countered by New Delhi's strong defence systems each time. As the May 10 ceasefire ended the conflict, News18 spoke to defence and government sources on what the threats mean. nuclear threats act as a great equaliser, deterring India from exploiting this imbalance," said sources. Pakistan has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) such as Ghaznavi and Shaheen missiles to counter India. These missiles facilitate rapid conventional strikes. 'Pakistan's nuclear threats against India reflect a mix of strategic desperation, domestic instability, and geopolitical posturing. It is a calculated, but risky strategy to mask systemic weaknesses, sustain proxy warfare, and deter Indian retaliation," they said. #WATCH | India's Operation Sindoor Utilized BrahMos Missiles To Target Terrorist camps In Pakistan, Says Sources. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh Inaugurated A BrahMos Missile Manufacturing Unit In Lucknow At 11 AM. #IndiaPakistanWar #OperationSindoor #RajnathSingh — News18 (@CNNnews18) May 11, 2025 ECONOMY, THREATS & CHINA Pakistan's economy is in freefall, with a $7-billion IMF bailout failing to stabilise inflation and debt. Baloch separatists, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and political opposition such as Imran Khan's imprisonment threaten the military's grip on power. The army establishment uses nuclear brinkmanship to rally nationalist sentiment and deflect blame. 'Escalating tensions with India create a rally-around-the-flag effect. The Pahalgam attack, linked to the Pakistan Army and ISI via a former commando of the Pak army and encrypted Chinese telecom equipment, suggests Pakistan's use of proxies like Lashkar-e-Toiba to destabilise Kashmir," said sources. Pakistan is dependent on China for military technology such as drones, missiles and diplomatic cover at the UN. ' Nuclear threats signal to Beijing that Islamabad remains a critical ally against India. By framing Kashmir as an Islamic cause, Pakistan seeks solidarity from Gulf states and Turkey, leveraging pan-Islamist narratives to offset isolation. The Pahalgam attack, ISI's role in shielding groups like LeT and its shadow group responsible for Pahalgam, The Resistance Front (TRF), and links to global terrorism such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout fall into the definition of a rogue state…AQ Khan's nuclear network, which is a supplier for Iran, North Korea, and the recent threats to sell nukes to other rogue states clearly suggest Pakistan's disregard for non-proliferation norms," he said. First Published: May 11, 2025, 18:29 IST
India.com
11-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Ceasefire Calms Borders: Understanding the Firepower — Ballistic vs Cruise Missiles
New Delhi: Tensions between India and Pakistan eased since May 10 evening after the latter's Director General of Military Operations dialed his Indian counterpart urging a ceasefire. No exchange of fire was reported, and both the Line of Control and the International Border remained largely peaceful since May 10 evening. During a morning press briefing, earlier that day, the Ministry of Defence stated that Pakistan had attempted to target Indian military infrastructure on the western front using drones, long-range weapons and fighter jets. Addressing the press conference, Colonel Sofia Qureshi revealed that at 1:40 AM on May 10, Pakistan had attempted to strike an airbase in Punjab using a high-speed missile. It is, however, unclear as to which specific missile Pakistan used. Missiles are generally categorised based on type, launch method, range, warhead and guidance system. They are broadly classified as either cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. What are the differences between cruise and ballistic missiles? Defence experts explained that missiles classified as cruise missiles typically do not exceed speeds of Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound). Ballistic missiles are considered high-speed because they travel faster than the speed of sound. While the exact missile launched by Pakistan remains unknown, the experts suggested it was likely a ballistic missile, given its high velocity. Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds up to ten times that of sound, and ballistic missiles also move much faster than the speed of sound. When one refers to high-speed missiles, he or she usually speaks of ballistic missiles. Pakistan's missile arsenal is largely composed of ballistic missiles; whereas, India possesses a broader and more advanced range. Along with other long-range missiles, Pakistan possesses a hypersonic missile called Fateh-II, with a range of up to 400 kilometers. The other long-rage missiles Pakistan have include Abdali (with a range of 200 to 300 kilometres) and Ghaznavi (which has a range of 300 to 350 kilometres). On the other hand, India's high-speed missile capabilities include a wide range of missile arsenal, including the Prithvi and Agni series, which gives it a strategic edge in terms of both range and variety. Cruise missiles function differently from ballistic ones. They fly like aircraft and are capable of precision targeting over long distances. Designed to evade radar by flying at low altitudes, they are equipped with sophisticated navigation systems. Cruise missiles can be launched from land, air, sea or submarines, and some can strike targets over a thousand kilometre away. India's cruise missile arsenal includes the BrahMos and Nirbhay, both of which are highly advanced. Cruise missiles are also classified based on speed – subsonic missiles travel below the speed of sound, supersonic missiles travel at two to three times the speed of sound and hypersonic missiles travel at five times the speed of sound or more. If elaboarted hypersonic missiles, they first ascend to altitudes around 100 kilometers, temporarily exiting the earth's atmosphere before re-entering during their descent to strike the target. Due to their speed and trajectory, these missiles are extremely difficult to detect or intercept. Hypersonic missiles can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. In November 2024, India successfully tested a long-range hypersonic missile with a range of over 1,500 kilometres. This missile can be launched from air, sea or land platforms, giving India enhanced flexibility in deployment. Defence experts said Pakistan, as of now, does not possess hypersonic missile capabilities.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
10-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
What happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? Understanding South Asia's most dangerous question
As India and Pakistan engage in their most intense military conflict in decades, the nuclear question looms large. With both nations possessing powerful arsenals and second-strike capabilities, a single miscalculation could spiral into catastrophe. This report breaks down the strategic doctrines, missile systems and the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that continue to hold back the unthinkable read more Aerial photo of the mushroom cloud rising over Nagasaki, Japan after the United States detonated an atomic bomb on August 9, 1945. Representational Image/US National Archives Cross-border tensions between India and Pakistan have climbed to new heights. Amid escalating military operations, the world is once again confronted with a harrowing question: what happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? The issue transcends conventional warfare. It enters a domain where the margin for error is non-existent, where every strategic calculation hinges on the doctrine of deterrence and where the consequence of miscalculation is unthinkable devastation. Pakistan's nuclear programme, born from its perception of existential threat following India's 1974 nuclear test , has matured into a formidable deterrent. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam and retaliatory measures by India that followed, politicians in Pakistan have made explosive threats mentioning nuclear weapons. Pakistani minister Hanif Abbasi remarked last month , 'We have kept Ghori, Shaheen, Ghaznavi, and 130 nuclear weapons only for India.' Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, in an interview with Reuters has also said that Pakistan would only use its arsenal of nuclear weapons if 'there is a direct threat to our existence'. On Saturday (May 10, 2025), Pakistan PM Shebaz Sharif reportedly called a meeting of the National Command Authority, the apex body overseeing the nation's nuclear arsenal, a meeting which Asif has now claimed never happened . 'No meeting has happened of the National Command Authority, nor is any such meeting scheduled,' Asif told Karachi-based ARY TV. How Pakistan is nuclear-capable Over the past two decades, Islamabad has developed a diverse array of nuclear-capable delivery systems spanning land, air and sea. The Shaheen-II missile, with a range of approximately 2,000 kilometres, is central to Pakistan's land-based nuclear posture. More recently, the Ababeel missile, equipped with Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) signals a significant leap in Pakistan's ability to overwhelm enemy defences. Pakistani military trucks carry the long range nuclear-capable surface-to-surface 'Ghauri' ballistic missile during the National Day parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 23, 2005. File Image/Reuters On the air front, Pakistan's fleet of F-16s and Mirage aircraft are believed to be capable of deploying nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles such as the Ra'ad, with a range exceeding 350 kilometres. Meanwhile, the Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile represents a developing but ambitious bid for a second-strike capability — vital for maintaining credible deterrence in the event of a first strike disabling land-based assets. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Pakistan has upwards of 170 nuclear warheads compared to India's 180, as of 2025. How India may be able to defend itself India, on the other hand, has adopted a declared 'No First Use' policy since the early 2000s and has developed a strategic nuclear triad to enforce this doctrine. Its arsenal includes land-based Agni series missiles, capable of reaching targets from neighbouring states to as far as China, nuclear-capable aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Jaguar, and most crucially, submarine-based ballistic missile platforms like the INS Arihant and INS Arighaat. These nuclear-powered submarines give New Delhi a stealthy, survivable second-strike option, reinforcing its deterrence posture. A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is displayed during the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, India, January 26, 2013. File Image/Reuters Missile defence remains one of the most intensely debated aspects of modern military planning in the subcontinent. While India has made major strides in developing a layered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) shield, comprising systems like the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) and the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptors, the task of successfully detecting and destroying an incoming nuclear missile is far from assured. At speeds that can exceed 24,000 kilometres per hour and with decoy or MIRV capabilities, even a single missile can render defence systems ineffective. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Swordfish radar system, designed to track enemy projectiles up to 1,500 kilometres away, is part of India's response to this challenge. Yet, military experts consistently highlight the point that no missile shield guarantees complete protection against a nuclear salvo, particularly one involving multiple warheads. What MAD entails This brings the discourse back to the enduring concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) — a principle that has, paradoxically, helped preserve peace among nuclear powers. MAD rests on the assumption that no rational actor would initiate a nuclear strike knowing that it would inevitably trigger a retaliatory response resulting in total annihilation. The doctrine works as a deterrent because the destruction would be so catastrophic for both the attacker and the defender that neither would benefit. In the India–Pakistan context, this logic still holds. A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is launched from the Wheeler Island off the eastern Indian state of Odisha, April 19, 2012. File Image/Reuters Both nations possess second-strike capabilities and understand that a nuclear war, regardless of who launches first, would result in national collapse, mass civilian casualties and a geopolitical fallout that would reverberate globally. Why MAD is not foolproof Nevertheless, MAD is not a foolproof safety net. The threat lies not in official doctrines, which are usually shaped with extreme caution, but in the possibility of misinterpretation, rogue actors or unintended escalation during conventional conflicts. Unlike the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where strategic communication channels were institutionalised and borders were not shared, India and Pakistan are separated by a tense and highly volatile Line of Control. When fighter jets are engaged in combat, missiles are being fired at military installations and nationalist rhetoric escalates, the room for error narrows. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, Pakistan's development of tactical nuclear weapons — smaller-yield warheads designed for battlefield use — further complicates the deterrence equation. These weapons lower the nuclear threshold and risk normalising their use in conventional scenarios. India's military doctrine, in contrast, states that any nuclear strike — tactical or strategic — will invite massive retaliation. The real cost All of this unfolds in a region where the civilian population is most vulnerable. Both countries host massive populations in densely populated urban centres. A single nuclear detonation in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi or Lahore could result in hundreds of thousands of immediate casualties, with many more dying from radiation exposure and long-term fallout. Hospitals, infrastructure, food supply chains and governance systems would collapse in the wake of such a catastrophe. International aid would struggle to respond, and the region would face ecological and economic consequences lasting decades. Both India and Pakistan possess the means to destroy each other — and themselves. As tensions flare and military manoeuvres dominate headlines, it is this restraint — this enduring understanding of the true cost of nuclear war — that remains South Asia's most important line of defence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As Pakistani politicians continue to invoke nuclear threats and Pakistan continues to escalate this conflict, the underlying message from Islamabad is clear: the nuclear option, while not a first choice, is not off the table. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Does America have a plan to capture Pakistan's nuclear weapons?
Military tensions between India and Pakistan over the Pahalgam terrorist attack have resurrected fears of a nuclear showdown. While India has a no-first-use policy, Pakistan often threatens India with a nuclear strike . Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has said recently that Pakistan would use its nuclear weapons if "there is a direct threat to our existence". Another minister, Hanif Abbasi, threatened India with nuclear retaliation and said that 130 missiles , including Shaheen, and Ghaznavi, were kept for India. "Those Shaheen (missiles), Ghaznavi (missiles), which we have kept arranged in our bases, we have kept them for Hindustan (India). The 130 weapons we possess are not just kept as models — and you have no idea in which parts of Pakistan we have positioned them," Abbasi said in a press conference a few days ago. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case probe How India can use water to pressure Pakistan Buzzkill: How India can dissolve the Pakistan problem, not just swat it While Pakistan's nuclear sabre-rattling has become too common to invoke any immediate concerns, the risk of a nuclear exchange between the two countries can never be underestimated. Interestingly, the US has had deep concerns over Pakistan's "loose nukes" and is also said to have an emergency plan to capture Pakistan's nuclear wepaons if a risk arises. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The cost of hearing aids in Preet Vihar might surprise you! Learn More Undo Also Read | A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case America's plan to "snatch-and-grab" Pakistan's nuclear weapons America's concerns over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal go decades back. It was reported in by NBC News in 2011 that the US has a contingency plan to "snatch-and-grab" Pakistan's nuclear weapons, if and when the US President believes they are a threat to either America or its interests. Plans had been drawn up for dealing with worst-case scenarios in Pakistan, NBC news reported quoting several US officials, who said that ensuring security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons had long been a high US security priority even before 9/11 terrorist attacks. Live Events Among the scenarios drawn by the report were Pakistan plunging into internal chaos, terrorist mounting a serious attack against a nuclear facility, hostilities breaking out with India, or Islamic extremist taking charge of the government or the Pakistan army. NBC said in its 2011 report that the greatest success of the US war on terrorism, the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden in his safe house in Pakistan had fuelled concerns about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The report said there were increasing suspicions among US officials that Osama had support within the ISI and the Abbottabad operation had emboldened those in Washington who believe an orchestrated campaign of lightning raids to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons could succeed. In the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, US military officials testified before Congress about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and the threat posed by "loose nukes" - nuclear weapons or materials outside the government's control. Earlier Pentagon reports also outlined scenarios in which US forces would intervene to secure nuclear weapons that were in danger of falling into the wrong hands. In an interview with NBC News in 2011, former Pakistan military ruler Pervez Musharraf had warned that a snatch-and-grab operation would lead to all-out war between the countries, calling it "total confrontation by the whole nation against whoever comes in". Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan's best known nuclear physicist and a human rights advocate, too, said a US attempt to take control of Pakistan's nukes would be foolhardy. "They are said to be hidden in tunnels under mountains, in cities, as well as regular air force and army bases," he said. "A US snatch operation could trigger war; it should never be attempted." Despite such comments, interviews with US officials, military reports and even congressional testimony indicated that Pakistan's weaponry had been the subject of continuing discussions, scenarios, war games and possibly even military exercises by US intelligence and special forces regarding so-called "snatch-and-grab" operations, the 2011 NBC News report said. "It's safe to assume that planning for the worst-case scenario regarding Pakistan nukes has already taken place inside the US government," Roger Cressey, former deputy director of counter-terrorism in the Clinton and Bush White House , had told NBC News. "This issue remains one of the highest priorities of the US intelligence community ... and the White House." Also Read | India planning to launch military strike against Pakistan within 24 to 36 hours, claims Pakistan's I&B minister Pakistan's "emerging threat" to the US American concerns over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal narrated in the NBC News report in 2011 must have only grown over time as Pakistan stockpiled more nukes and also achieved greater military power. A decade later, in 2021, a Brookings article mentioned the American plan to capture Pakistan's nukes: "Indeed, since the shock of 9/11, Pakistan has come to represent such an exasperating problem that the U.S. has reportedly developed a secret plan to arbitrarily seize control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if a terrorist group in Pakistan seemed on the edge of capturing some or all of its nuclear warheads," wrote Marvin Kalb. "When repeatedly questioned about the plan, U.S. officials have strung together an artful, if unpersuasive, collection of 'no comments.' Last year, the US was alarmed by a new development in Pakistan. A senior White House official said in December that nuclear-armed Pakistan was developing long-range ballistic missile capabilities that eventually could allow it to strike targets well beyond South Asia, making it an "emerging threat" to the US, Reuters reported. Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer's surprise revelation underscored how far the once-close ties between Washington and Islamabad had deteriorated since the 2021 US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Finer said the number of nuclear-armed states with missiles that could reach the US homeland "is very small and they tend to be adversarial," naming Russia, North Korea and China. "So, candidly, it's hard for us to see Pakistan's actions as anything other than an emerging threat to the United States," he said. An official told Reuters that the threat posed to the US is up to a decade away. Finer's speech came a day after Washington announced a new round of sanctions related to Pakistan's ballistic missile development program, including for the first time against the state-run defense agency that oversees the program.
Hans India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Pak's WAR cry
New Delhi/Islamabad: In an explosive escalation of tensions, Pakistan minister Hanif Abbasi openly threatened India with nuclear retaliation, warning that Pakistan's arsenal - including Ghori, Shaheen, and Ghaznavi missiles along with 130 nuclear warheads - has been kept "only for India". Abbasi said if India dares to halt Pakistan's water supply by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, it should "prepare for a full-scale war". He declared that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not for display, and their locations are hidden across the country, ready to strike if provoked. "If they stop the water supply to us, then they should be ready for a war. The military equipment we have, the missiles we have, they're not for display. Nobody knows where we have placed our nuclear weapons across the country. I say it again, these ballistic missiles, all of them are targeted at you," he warned. His reaction came after India announced a series of countermeasures against Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack that left 26 dead. India announced its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 and also revoked all visas for Pakistani nationals. Mocking India's decision to suspend water supply and trade ties with Pakistan, Hanif Abbasi said that New Delhi was beginning to realise the harsh consequences of its actions. Referring to the disruption caused by Pakistan shutting its airspace to Indian flights, he pointed to the chaos it triggered in Indian aviation in just two days. "If things were to continue like this for another 10 days, the airlines in India would go bankrupt," Abbasi said. The minister lashed out at India, accusing it of shifting blame onto Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack instead of acknowledging its own security failures. He further asserted that Pakistan had already begun preparing for the fallout following India's decision to suspend trade between the two countries, signalling that Islamabad was ready to counter any economic measures taken against it.
