It is unclear what a "better" nuclear missile is. For the purposes of India and Pakistan, the missiles need not have long range since their primary adversary is right on their border. If we are talking about death tolls from a projected strike, that has more to do with the city hit than the strength of the missile.
As for the Community Answer; the reason neither country has fired their missiles is because the leaders of those countries have some semblance of humanity and would prefer to not incinerate hundreds of thousands of people in a cataclysmic explosion.
Pacadirm
faster
1.cheap electricity. 2.job prospect will be better.
It meant better development of fighters, bombers and missiles.
There is been 3 wars fought between Pakistan & India Pakistan won 2 & India won Only 1 War India have large standing army but in Quality & experience India is far behind from Pakistan
nuclear is a type of electricity
nuclear belive me !
is economic imbalance is better than nuclear imbalance
Well, the F-22 eagle can carry two SRAM missiles and four heat seeking missiles. The F-15 eagle can carry six bombs but the F-22 stealth raptor carries two SRAM missiles, four to eight heat seeking missiles or eight bombs. The F-22 stealth raptor is much better than the F-15 eagle.
witch hair is better indian or malaysian
Both India and Pakistan have vast armies. Which one is stronger? No one can be sure. If we exclude nuclear arsenal, then India has the upper hand in infantry, artillery (both by number of soldiers and technological support). Pakistan's Navy is far weaker. By air, muscles are to be evaluated carefully, looking for all the parameters.
Soviet Premier Khrushchev wanted to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, because the US had placed Nuclear weapons in West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Japan, and A few pacific islands. He wanted to equalize the strategic advantage