Dr. Shahiduzzaman: in order to change India’s habitual perception, our only answer as I feel is nuclearization.

[hyperman]

If Pakistan does anything even remotely similar, it will be treated as proliferation and will likely invite sanctions. Bangladesh also is signatory to NPT as a non-nuclear state. Try to withdraw from it and there will be sanction consequences on both of the states. At BEST bangladesh can argue to host Pakistan controlled nuclear weapons but to actually have nukes with Bangladesh forces is essentially inviting sanctions on violation of NPT.


I highly doubt that powers-to-be in Pakistan will even remotely consider to sanction and to submit itself to a complete nuclear annihilation in a war they might not be party to. Remember, there is no NATO kind of Article 5 between two countries and neither Pakistan is strong enough to actually put together anything similar.

Besides, there is nothing of value for Pakistan and its decision makers in this.

Lastly, I highly doubt India will threaten to use nukes first on Bangladesh without a provocation of nukes or WMD. In a purely conventional war, India can wipe the floor with Bangladesh. So why will it escalate? Without nuclear threat, any kind of treaty or nuclear weapons sharing is useless as a means of deterrance.

NWS is not seen as proliferation funny enough, the US and Russia BOTH do it with respective partners.

As for the mutual defense, we are talking hypotheticals, obviously Article 5 doesn't exist, I'm talking of a scenario where is gets created.

The conventional warfare disparity is precisely the reasons for the nukes. You are imagining a scenario where a country acquires nukes to deter the nukes of another, but thats not the scenario here. The Pakistani scenario for Nukes are there precisely for a 1st strike deterrent in the scenario where a conventional arms threshold is crossed. Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy by design, b/c under the Pakistani doctrine it will likely be the first to use nukes in any significant conflict, for the point of acting as a deterrent, so as the other side know they they can't "wipe the floor" with anyone in conventional warfare, without risking themselves getting wiped out.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Yeah I guess it's time for BD to get nuclear weapons.

 

[DDG-80]

You are not China, you have the population size of China, but you are not China. lol

If you think you have a better relationship with Sri Lanka than China, you are delusional. lol

Oh, so now we need to hear from a Turkish guy about capacity? That’s pretty amusing. The same Turkey that’s constantly juggling economic crises, inflation spiraling out of control, political instability, and unresolved internal issues? The same country that’s trying to play both sides in international politics but keeps getting stuck in the middle, not really belonging fully to either the West or the East? You’re really trying to lecture India—seriously?

Let’s not forget, Turkey’s foreign policy has been a masterclass in how to isolate yourself, from strained relationships with neighbors in the Middle East to falling out with long-term allies. The occasional saber-rattling might feel good, but maybe focus on solving your own issues before worrying about whether India has the capacity to help its neighbors.

India, by the way, doesn’t need validation from countries that are struggling to maintain relevance on the world stage. We’ve built relationships based on trust, shared history, and mutual respect, not just throwing money around and hoping it sticks. When we step up, it’s to help, not to pull countries into debt traps. And while you might be obsessed with population sizes and think that’s all it takes to exert influence, we prefer building lasting relationships. Maybe that’s something Turkey could learn a bit about.

So before you get too confident about lecturing India, maybe take a moment to reflect on where your own country stands. We’ve been managing our region and helping our neighbors long before you were trying to balance your geopolitical identity crisis.

 

[DDG-80]

Idk wtf this has to do with Turkey.

I'm just giving my own personal assessment of the situation, has no relation to Turkey.

You can believe whatever you want about Turkey. lol

Also India isn't going to do shit to Turkey. lol, don't get upset over an unrelated thing and then start to speak on behalf of the Indian state as if they are going to do something, they sell a couple of weapons to a desperate Armenia, and suddenly every Bhakh thinks that India some sort of world power broker of something. lmao

Whether India’s a global power or not, we don’t need to seek validation from some Turkish dude. If it came down to it, we could definitely give Turkey a run for its money.

 

[DDG-80]

Lmao, India is in no position to make threats to China, it didn't have the Capacity before in the first war, and it doesn't have it today. China is far more consolidated than India, and with far less "loose ends" shall we way. Any sort of move against China will end in a far bigger disaster than Aksai Chin last time.

Haha, seriously, you need to get a grip on geography before you start running your mouth. It’s not just about who’s got more or less—there’s a ton of complexity in the mix and the Chumbi Valley situation is way more nuanced. So, if you want to get into a debate about this, maybe try getting your facts straight first. Otherwise, it’s like arguing with someone who’s only read the cover of a book.

 

[AjayGhatak]

What you are suggesting is more likely to bring sanctions. NWS, funny enough is something that the US and Russia now both do, so the basis for knocking that would be weak.

There is nuclear weapons hosting and there is nuclear weapons sharing. Only UK gets nuclear weapons from USA for its armed forces, while others only host them, weapons still under command and control of US forces with PAL codes under command of US forces.

And USA, UK and Russia are nuclear weapons states. Neither Pakistan and nor Bangladesh are nuclear weapons state. So yes, they will invite sanctions.

Building the weapons yourself would be problematic, India would likely attack to prevent a scenario of building and there would be sanctions, but a deployment of foreign nukes is more difficult to stop. b/c technically they aren't your own nukes and the deployment time is much shorter than trying to build nukes.

If Pakistan were to attempt hosting its nukes in bangladesh, formally, it is very likely that India will attack and destroy them using just conventional forces. If Bangladesh were to get them secretly that is not different than buying nukes from North Korea and it will be much better to buy it from North Korea because it will come with no strings attached and North Korean nukes are among the best tested and most mature ones outside of existing nuclear powers.

So yes, formal sharing under a NATO kind of treaty is mostly impossible due to sanctions and possibility of attack.

Whats more, if Pakistan does it anways, there is a chance India will also provide nukes to Afghanistan Taliban with short ranged missiles making life way harder for Pakistan.

Only real possibility for Bangladesh to get nukes is from north korea. It will get more mature and reliable weapons and with no strings attached.

 

[Michael Corleone]

You are a funny guy.... Pakistan who is already not performing good on economic front and you honestly believe that it is in position to nuke other nuclear power and invite a nuclear retaliation on its own land for that country attacking Bangladesh who is too performing poorly on economic front?? Seems a good amount of weed in your fish curry and rice.....

Economy doesn’t matter when it comes to the fear of a mutually assured destruction and deterrence. Also stick to more professional commentary because y’all have become champions of racist stereotypes

 

[AjayGhatak]

NWS is not seen as proliferation funny enough, the US and Russia BOTH do it with respective partners.

Mostly because USA and Russia are nuclear weapons state AND they do not give permission to use nukes to hosting countries. Their PALs are still in hands of US forces.

As for the mutual defense, we are talking hypotheticals, obviously Article 5 doesn't exist, I'm talking of a scenario where is gets created.

For that to happen, Bangladesh will have to host Pakistani forces in its land in a fashion very similar to how US bases are in Germany and other european countries. Does Pakistan even have enough money to actually do that? I doubt it. Plus will Bangladesh be happy with allowing Pakistani forces to be stationed in its soil? Again I doubt it given the history. Also even attempting to do that might end up inviting war from India.

Remember, India only needs rocket artillery (not even missiles) to cover each and every place in Bangladesh.

Also as I said before, if Pakistan ends up supplying nukes or host its forces in bangladesh, India very likely will give Afghan Taliban nukes and that will be a major problem for Pakistan because now it will have to deal with two nuclear armed adversories looking for its blood.

 

[AjayGhatak]

The conventional warfare disparity is precisely the reasons for the nukes. You are imagining a scenario where a country acquires nukes to deter the nukes of another, but thats not the scenario here. The Pakistani scenario for Nukes are there precisely for a 1st strike deterrent in the scenario where a conventional arms threshold is crossed. Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy by design, b/c under the Pakistani doctrine it will likely be the first to use nukes in any significant conflict, for the point of acting as a deterrent, so as the other side know they they can't "wipe the floor" with anyone in conventional warfare, without risking themselves getting wiped out.

You are wrong. If Pakistan is hosting its weapons in Bangladesh, it increases risks for itself and not safety because now it will have to deal with a nuclear war due to tensions which have nothing to do with itself but with a foreign country ie bangladesh. Not to mention a real risk of India hosting or giving nukes to Afghan Talibans.

And unlike USA which gets access to resources and prefential economic treatment due to its position as a security provider to Europe, there is not much of trade between Pakistan and Bangladesh. Not to mention, Bangladesh does not have much to offer in terms of commerce to Pakistan because Pakistan itself lacks in industrial base.

 

[AbuShalehRumi]

Also as I said before, if Pakistan ends up supplying nukes or host its forces in bangladesh, India very likely will give Afghan Taliban nukes

Ahh, I like the sound of it. Now Pakistan must give us nukes, so india can give some of their nukes to Taliban, then Taliban can share some with Hauti, Hamas and Hezbollah and fuk the zionists.
.
Thanks in advance to india...

 

[FuturePAF]

If Pakistan does do as suggested and deploys nukes to Bangladesh, the number will be relatively limited. Hence the need for a “Shell Game”. If say two dozen nukes were deployed to Bangladesh, a size large enough to not be fully taken out in a few strikes, that would mean 24 missiles. If these missiles are canisterized, then fake canisters on TELs can also be deployed to keep the Indians guessing. Bases and terrain would have to be prepared to hide these missiles.

This also means a new generation of missile, a more robust one would be needed. A 1000-1500 km range missile to be be able to hold

But in reality this could all be done quietly by provide protection from within Pakistani borders; saying Pakistan would use them if Bangladesh’s was in danger of invasion by India.

The question would then come down to, would Pakistan risk retaliation for nuking India to defend Bangladesh. Pakistan-Bangladesh relations would have to recover to such a degree, and Pakistan would have to gain something significant to warrant this level of protection. In part would be forgiveness for Karachi’s (former capital’s) governance pre-1971, but also something physically tangible. Perhaps a naval base for PN nuclear submarines down the line.

 

[AjayGhatak]

Ahh, I like the sound of it. Now Pakistan must give us nukes, so india can give some of their nukes to Taliban, then Taliban can share some with Hauti, Hamas and Hezbollah and fuk the zionists.
.
Thanks in advance to india...

If there was so much brotherly relations between these, Pakistan nukes would have been finding its way to Hamas.

Besides, what will stop Bangaldeshi students from selling its Pakistani nukes to Hamas ?

 

[AjayGhatak]

But in reality this could all be done quietly by provide protection from within Pakistani borders; saying Pakistan would use them if Bangladesh’s was in danger of invasion by India.

And tell me why will Pakistan increase risk for itself? A conflict in Bangladesh ending up blowing Islamabad? What does Pakistan gain?

 

[AjayGhatak]

But in reality this could all be done quietly by provide protection from within Pakistani borders; saying Pakistan would use them if Bangladesh’s was in danger of invasion by India.

Deterrance can never be done quietly. India will call it bluff and Pakistan will have to demonstrate its willingness to nuke India. And that means nuclear war already.

There is a reason why NATO is so much public entity.

What you need is South Asian NATO with Pakistan playing role of USA and India playing role of USSR. Which is so absurd that it is not even worth discussing.

 

[Michael Corleone]

*Ahem* The bigger question is will Pakistan gamble on its existence for Bangladesh? Remember, Pakistan is no USA and even USA is having doubts about giving nuclear guarentees to Ukraine or even Taiwan. You want Pakistan to give you their guarantee that any attack on Bangladesh will invite a nuclear retaliation from Pakistan. LOL!

Moreover, what will Pakistan have to lose if they do not fulfill their part of deal in a future confrontation with India with Banladesh? If they just back off, do they lose anything? There is not much trade between you countries.

And they do not have any market for what you produce in bulk. And so do you. They can not sell you electricity. They do not produce enough cotton to fulfill your import and growth needs. And rest do not matter. Neither your two nations have any kind of common families or populations have famalial entaglements like Canada and UK has with USA. So what will ensure you both remain reliable to each other?

All of this "Pakistan will give us nuclear deterrance against India" is such a stupid idea that it does not even begin to make sense. If your country actually ends up believing it, which I guess is likely because how dumb your thinkers are, it will be betrayed and will end up getting beaten throughly in one or the other kind of misadventure.

The ONLY way for you to have a deterrence is to develop nuclear weapons yourself and required delivery mechanism to deter a WAY bigger enemy, like Pakistan has done.

NATO has similar arrangements it’s nothing new being thought up and there are clauses in place to get everyone involved as one. The fact of the matter is India will not invade bd in the first place. Any retaliation by Pakistan is really an afterthought but should it occur, such irrationality has been answered with irrationality in the past between India and Pakistan.

As we speak our trade with Pakistan is growing at least compared to with India which is completely halted. The funny part is this trade between bd and India favored India so definitely a big blow.

As for market research you need not worry about them and us.

Japan has not needed nuclear weapons even though they’ve the means to have it ready within six months, neither did Korea and all other US allies that have a bad relation with China… because a defense pact of nuclear umbrella ensures protection without need to possess such a weapon. Also what makes you think that a crude bomb cannot be assembled? Which is arguably worse than a proper functioning nuclear device