Does the world need Nuclear Weapons

Durint the battle of Badr, The Sahaba's had only 313 and the opponents had 1,000.

This forum surely knows what else the opponents comprise with.

At the and the spirit won. Why? Due to the Ihsan. (Lessons were not taken in to consideration by us)

Over the years Me & my beloved brothers all of us loose this point of Ihsan.

Btw: In global terms I am far behind from this topic and I may live in ages back.

But my personal and practical point is, Making my self is more important for me.

It is not about philosophies, it is about improving lives of improvised people of both the countries. And you are stuck with Pakistan, I was talking about both the countries.

Anyway I respect your view, let us agree to is disagree here.

Mufti: I don't live in a world of philosophies. The world moves on realities. Ground realities demanded Pakistan go nuclear if it wanted to exist on the world map.

It is not a matter of pride. It is a matter of a country's own existence.

Accha, you can take pride in Pakistan having nuclear weapons but I don't share your view. I am against both the poor countries(india, pakistan) having it.

Unfortunately the educated people took the wage to create nuclear & Arms.

If they used there education to uplift the world education, the scenario may different at this moment.

Dear QL Participants & Brity, Thank you for the topic and constructive communication.

Mufti: Nawaz Sharif was under tremendous pressure from world powers not to go ahead with the nuclear explosion in 1998. However, he knew the consequences of not carrying it out. I respect his solid stance and wise decision of not to cow down and buckle under world pressure. Since India was sure Pakistan did not yet have a nuclear bomb, rumours I heard were that L. K. Advani & Co were planning an attack on Pakistan to "liberate" Kashmir from Pakistan which would have earned his party another term as a majority in parliament. However, when Pakistan exploded its nuclear device in 1998 following India's explosion, the wind came out of Mr Advani's balloon and his plans did not take off.

For Pakistan, the possession of nuclear bombs ensure its very existence on the world map.

Accaha. My post was directed at both the under developed countries i.e India & Pakistan. And it is true that substantial percentage of their population go almost hungry every day. There is nothing to glorify about possessing a nuclear bomb.

A war is always destructive but when it comes to countries like India and Pakistan, it would be no less than havoc for both sides.

Having said that, let's look at things from an unbiased point of view. The nuclear arms race in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent was in reality begun by the India. Pakistan simply followed to offset the balance of power.

In 1998 when India carried out a series of atomic explosion which was its second one, Pakistan was forced to bring out its nuclear arsenal from under the wraps, tighten a couple of screws, and display to the world its nuclear capabilities.

The nuclear weapons gave Pakistan a reassurance that it not be humiliated the same way it was in 1971. If Indian forces were to ever enter Pakistani territory in such force, it is mostly likely Pakistan would compensate for its conventional military inferiority by using battlefield nuclear weapons. Such a plan makes India’s military doctrine of a swift incursion into Pakistan capturing as much territory as possible before Pakistan retaliates, hard to implement.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program began in 1972 under the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He realized the importance of Pakistan having nuclear weapons as a deterrent against India. This was clear from his famous statement, "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of own."

It is true that when a country attempts to go nuclear, it does direct funds from other developmental programs that would have benefited the masses. But the fact remains and cannot be overlooked that the presence of nuclear weapons acts as deterrent to aggression.

Thus, in the end, the presence of nuclear weapons does ensure peace.

I would agree that one should not dictate who should and cannot have nuclear weapons.

However, I also believe that in this day and age, nuclear weapons are not as useful as during the cold war.

our enemies are different now with different capabilities and fighting methods

And then some people jump in to give justifications. If A has committed sucide , Why shouldn't B go for the same.

WT: I think all the blame should go to the country who firstly got nuclear weapons after that other countries intentions was to get nuclear weapon only for defensive purpose...

Mufti: Valid point. However, both would say that it is to protect themselves.

i just wonder whether any country can afford to go to war nowdays.

Don't know about other countries but why should India and Pakistan spend billions on nuclear weapons when millions of their citizens are living in poverty. They should rather be spending this money on health care, education, infrastructure, science and technology etc.

I think the nature of warfare has changed. For me, Trident is too expensive and we should do away with nuclear weapons. However, getting agreements on such matters from all parties would be nigh on impossible.

We have become too far now ........................

No, I didn't.

I forgot Russia, of course.

Every state who owns nuclear weapons is an enemy of the human kind! There are about 8 of them. Israel is not confirmed only assumed. USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea. There you've got the list of those who should be deported from planet earth!

No we don't need such weapons ..