Key targets for both sides
- Thread starter TOPGUN
- Start date
PakShaheen79
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
-Air Bases
-Command & Control centers
-Fuel Refineries / Dumps
-Food Dumps
-Ammunition Dumps
-Comm infrastrcture
-Command & Control centers
-Fuel Refineries / Dumps
-Food Dumps
-Ammunition Dumps
-Comm infrastrcture
gogbot
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
- Reaction score
- 0
Nuclear Missile storage areas.
Related logistical sites.
Attempt's to reduce Pakistan's Nuke option
AWACS and satellites looking for Missiles and launch sites, as well as any launch's.
Airbases-Primarily using cruise Missiles
Radar nets- Also Using missile attacks
Air-force in operating in close support with the Army as it takes terrain.
(essentially Blitzkrieg)
As Gaps in Pakistan Radar start to pop up deep strikes into the heart of Pakistan, this time using Aircraft.
Air force will attack all the usual targets as per Army deployment.
Due to the drastic Increase In precision Ordinance, The Air-force will be spearheading attacks, With Army Following suit and mopping up
This Job can be made so much easier if, India makes the Preemptive strike
As IAF would achieve instant air superiority. With their numbers, with the eventual goal of air dominance
Navy will be tasked with hunting down PAk Submarine's, as well as blockading Pakistan Ports.
Attacks using AC or deployment of SF teams behind the enemy's lines are also an option for the NAVY.
Ideally the Military will also want to detonate a Nuclear weapon in space over Pakistan, so that the resulting EMP would Knock out any unshielded Electrical systems. But this Process is Unlikely as, No one has attempted to field Nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well you asked and there it is.
But I doubt the Pak military would make it as simple as i have written or an attack like that even possible.
But those seems to be the Logical things to to.
Related logistical sites.
Attempt's to reduce Pakistan's Nuke option
AWACS and satellites looking for Missiles and launch sites, as well as any launch's.
Airbases-Primarily using cruise Missiles
Radar nets- Also Using missile attacks
Air-force in operating in close support with the Army as it takes terrain.
(essentially Blitzkrieg)
As Gaps in Pakistan Radar start to pop up deep strikes into the heart of Pakistan, this time using Aircraft.
Air force will attack all the usual targets as per Army deployment.
Due to the drastic Increase In precision Ordinance, The Air-force will be spearheading attacks, With Army Following suit and mopping up
This Job can be made so much easier if, India makes the Preemptive strike
As IAF would achieve instant air superiority. With their numbers, with the eventual goal of air dominance
Navy will be tasked with hunting down PAk Submarine's, as well as blockading Pakistan Ports.
Attacks using AC or deployment of SF teams behind the enemy's lines are also an option for the NAVY.
Ideally the Military will also want to detonate a Nuclear weapon in space over Pakistan, so that the resulting EMP would Knock out any unshielded Electrical systems. But this Process is Unlikely as, No one has attempted to field Nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well you asked and there it is.
But I doubt the Pak military would make it as simple as i have written or an attack like that even possible.
But those seems to be the Logical things to to.
rajeev
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 503
- Reaction score
- 0
If India follows the Cold-Start Doctrine, it could devastate the Pakistan. But I think India would spare some military so that Pakistan does not use its nuclear missiles.
But if nuclear missiles are used by both sides, there wont be much need for debate. Only Pakistanis left would be the ones outside the country left and from the Indian side, South India, East India and NE India will be only part of the India left.
But if nuclear missiles are used by both sides, there wont be much need for debate. Only Pakistanis left would be the ones outside the country left and from the Indian side, South India, East India and NE India will be only part of the India left.
Novice09
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
As I strongly believe Whoever (India or Pakistan) comes closer to defeat, will surly use its Nukes. 
Therefore, for a successful attempt, both have to curb each others Nuke capabilities ASAP and effectively ....
Anyhow, Uncle SAM
will do his best to stop an all out war between India & Pakistan. 
Therefore, for a successful attempt, both have to curb each others Nuke capabilities ASAP and effectively ....
Anyhow, Uncle SAM
will do his best to stop an all out war between India & Pakistan. 
Trisonics
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,997
- Reaction score
- -13
most imp for us to destroy their economy ports IT infrastructure ...
come on all we do is some silly back office and call centers and maybe just some trivial coding its nothing
The best way to win the war for India is to completely block of all supplies while maintaining some sort of restraint. Bring immense world pressure on Pakistan since it would be the aggressor (IMO..no one has to agree). Pakistan is pinned and waves the white flag...no nuclear war very little blood shed and we can comeback here to fight about how superior we were in this and that
and there we go full circle!!!!
TOPGUN
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8,689
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
come on all we do is some silly back office and call centers and maybe just some trivial coding its nothing
The best way to win the war for India is to completely block of all supplies while maintaining some sort of restraint. Bring immense world pressure on Pakistan since it would be the aggressor (IMO..no one has to agree). Pakistan is pinned and waves the white flag...no nuclear war very little blood shed and we can comeback here to fight about how superior we were in this and that
It's a simple thread lets not turn in to a foolish pride one that makes no sense lets keep our prides to our selves and stick to the topic thx!
Hari
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 0
Since India and Pakistan are armed with Nuclear weapons possibility of a conventional war is very less Instead there will be
>wars will be fought with non-state actors
>A direct attack on the enemy's culture.
>Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare.
>All available pressures are used - political, economic, social and military.
>Attack of enemy's communication infrastruture
>E-Attaks
>Disaggregated forces, such as guerillas, terrorists and rioters, lacking a center of gravity, deny to their enemies a focal point at which to deliver a conflict ending blow
>wars will be fought with non-state actors
>A direct attack on the enemy's culture.
>Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare.
>All available pressures are used - political, economic, social and military.
>Attack of enemy's communication infrastruture
>E-Attaks
>Disaggregated forces, such as guerillas, terrorists and rioters, lacking a center of gravity, deny to their enemies a focal point at which to deliver a conflict ending blow
Insane
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
I am a novice as far as military knowledge and strategy is concerned. But i am really curious about what places not to hang around in case of a war so that one may feel safer
Coming back to what are key targets it depends on how the war develops, what are priorities at hand with respect to task to be carried out, available resources ( I do not think both countries have unlimited missiles, warheads etc .. ).
We all know the names of the missiles and their range both countries have in their closet. But what number. I think it does play a significant part of the strategy as one would want maximum effect with minimum resources spent. Can anyone give any rough estimate as to how many Ghauri, shaheen, Babur etc pakistan may have deployed lets say by 2010 and smiliarly of the Prithvi, Agni etc from Indian side.
Now In case of first strike by india the key targets could be -
1. Expected locations of Nuclear assets ( Including delivery systems)
2. Air Bases and Control centers.
3. Key Cities like Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad , Rawalpindi, Multan etc.
4. Resource centers like ports, oil supplies, water supplies etc etc.
In case pakistan strikes first it would do the same replacing the cities by Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Ahmadabad, Bangalore etc.
Yes while discussing this we might as well take note that the obvious targets will be covered with multiple layers of protection systems like ABM, SAM etc. So depending on the intelligence available the lesser protected assets are also likely to be main targets even if they are less important than the obvious ones.
But i do not know what options will a country have in case of second strike. It will depend on survivability after initial strike by opponent. Can anyone give me an idea about possible number of nuclear warhead by both countries by 2010 lets say. Survivability is likely to be the key factor in this war as both countries try to cause maximum damage on the other. But that is topic for another thread may be.
Coming back to what are key targets it depends on how the war develops, what are priorities at hand with respect to task to be carried out, available resources ( I do not think both countries have unlimited missiles, warheads etc .. ).
We all know the names of the missiles and their range both countries have in their closet. But what number. I think it does play a significant part of the strategy as one would want maximum effect with minimum resources spent. Can anyone give any rough estimate as to how many Ghauri, shaheen, Babur etc pakistan may have deployed lets say by 2010 and smiliarly of the Prithvi, Agni etc from Indian side.
Now In case of first strike by india the key targets could be -
1. Expected locations of Nuclear assets ( Including delivery systems)
2. Air Bases and Control centers.
3. Key Cities like Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad , Rawalpindi, Multan etc.
4. Resource centers like ports, oil supplies, water supplies etc etc.
In case pakistan strikes first it would do the same replacing the cities by Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Ahmadabad, Bangalore etc.
Yes while discussing this we might as well take note that the obvious targets will be covered with multiple layers of protection systems like ABM, SAM etc. So depending on the intelligence available the lesser protected assets are also likely to be main targets even if they are less important than the obvious ones.
But i do not know what options will a country have in case of second strike. It will depend on survivability after initial strike by opponent. Can anyone give me an idea about possible number of nuclear warhead by both countries by 2010 lets say. Survivability is likely to be the key factor in this war as both countries try to cause maximum damage on the other. But that is topic for another thread may be.
Dont you think all these important place are protected with Russia imported lethal aniti missile defense system S300. and Israel imported lethal spider multilayer defense system. I heard long back Delhi , mumbai business hub are backed up with S300 defense system and nuclear sites as well.
One more thing , in case of war all the S300 battaries will be moved along border as they can cover 600km range. Obviously these must be backed up with air-force and anti missile defense system. In that case the real threat is to really target these lethal batteries just to enter in India.
Another factor this must be an electronic war fare so instead of targeting business hub , the goal is to jam or destroy each other electronics installation to make other handicap as early as possible.
Another factor this must be an electronic war fare so instead of targeting business hub , the goal is to jam or destroy each other electronics installation to make other handicap as early as possible.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Gents,
The first TYPE of targets for the INITIAL attacks will be determined by the attacker's military capability. Take the extreme case of the US military, for example, we have the capability to attack on multiple fronts at the same time an enemy's first line forces, such as air bases, ports, troop garrisons and depots. Targets like electrical power stations, factories or bridges are not considered first line forces but economic supporting structures. We can hit them all on the first day.
But for militaries that cannot go to that level, active duty military forces such as air bases, ports, troop garrisons and depots are the highest priority as they, not factories or bridges, would be the forces that can prosecute the war. Between the sword and the shield, either take out the arm that wield the sword or remove the sword. Remove the enemy's ABILITY to prosecute the war and you will be able to take your time to remove his CAPACITY to support a war.
Ability to prosecute is -- immediate.
Capacity to support is -- long term.
When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak, the attack was against 'capacity to support' type of target. Israel did not attack any of Iraq's active duty military forces. For the US in Desert Storm and OIF, we hit all types of targets. In WW II, the Allies were able to do the same for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Germany was able to do the same against some members of the Allies, but not against Great Britain. For the UK, distance disallow Germany's first line forces to be against UK's but air power allowed Germany to attack 'capacity to support' type of targets on England's home soil.
When there is a possibility of armed conflict between hostile neighbors, and we are talking about immediate neighbors, territorial sovereignty will be violated, that mean first line forces such as air bases, ports and troop garrisons should be the highest priority, even when there is the ability to attack all types of targets. Ground troops in one's territory is much more psychologically devastating than enemy air forces over one's territory. It is much more structurally difficult to support continuous air power over enemy territory, even for US. But 10,000 heavily armed troops in enemy territory can hold out for a long time, demanding his attention and resources that could be more useful elsewhere. Forcing the enemy to conduct military operations on his own soil is halfway to victory and very psychologically damaging to his morale. That is why paratroop forces are so feared, not just for their above average combat skills but for the negative psychological effects they bring when they are behind one's own lines or deep in one's own home territory.
So for the sake of debate, everyone should ratchet down several levels and look at the fact that this is about hostile neighbors who are immediate to each other and how that re-prioritize precious resources. Forget about 'non-state actors'. They need state sponsorship just like the regular forces. They have allegiances and once they are involved in the conflict, worse fate is in store for the state lose the war that supported those 'non-state actors'. For immediate neighbors who are hostile to each other and the possibility of escalation into armed conflict is real, it is better to focus on 'ability to prosecute' type of targets.
The first TYPE of targets for the INITIAL attacks will be determined by the attacker's military capability. Take the extreme case of the US military, for example, we have the capability to attack on multiple fronts at the same time an enemy's first line forces, such as air bases, ports, troop garrisons and depots. Targets like electrical power stations, factories or bridges are not considered first line forces but economic supporting structures. We can hit them all on the first day.
But for militaries that cannot go to that level, active duty military forces such as air bases, ports, troop garrisons and depots are the highest priority as they, not factories or bridges, would be the forces that can prosecute the war. Between the sword and the shield, either take out the arm that wield the sword or remove the sword. Remove the enemy's ABILITY to prosecute the war and you will be able to take your time to remove his CAPACITY to support a war.
Ability to prosecute is -- immediate.
Capacity to support is -- long term.
When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak, the attack was against 'capacity to support' type of target. Israel did not attack any of Iraq's active duty military forces. For the US in Desert Storm and OIF, we hit all types of targets. In WW II, the Allies were able to do the same for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Germany was able to do the same against some members of the Allies, but not against Great Britain. For the UK, distance disallow Germany's first line forces to be against UK's but air power allowed Germany to attack 'capacity to support' type of targets on England's home soil.
When there is a possibility of armed conflict between hostile neighbors, and we are talking about immediate neighbors, territorial sovereignty will be violated, that mean first line forces such as air bases, ports and troop garrisons should be the highest priority, even when there is the ability to attack all types of targets. Ground troops in one's territory is much more psychologically devastating than enemy air forces over one's territory. It is much more structurally difficult to support continuous air power over enemy territory, even for US. But 10,000 heavily armed troops in enemy territory can hold out for a long time, demanding his attention and resources that could be more useful elsewhere. Forcing the enemy to conduct military operations on his own soil is halfway to victory and very psychologically damaging to his morale. That is why paratroop forces are so feared, not just for their above average combat skills but for the negative psychological effects they bring when they are behind one's own lines or deep in one's own home territory.
So for the sake of debate, everyone should ratchet down several levels and look at the fact that this is about hostile neighbors who are immediate to each other and how that re-prioritize precious resources. Forget about 'non-state actors'. They need state sponsorship just like the regular forces. They have allegiances and once they are involved in the conflict, worse fate is in store for the state lose the war that supported those 'non-state actors'. For immediate neighbors who are hostile to each other and the possibility of escalation into armed conflict is real, it is better to focus on 'ability to prosecute' type of targets.
ice_man
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
well firstly both sides will carry out SEAD operations! the reason being that both want to blind his enemy in terms of radar coverage! once that is achieved both sides can pick there "sectors" of attack as in air bases or military depots or DAMs!
now with cruise missile capabilities on both sides SEAD operations will be over within the first couple of hours! this will be followed by going after the airforce bases of the enemy & fuel refineries!
S-300 is a good protection system but even that cannot stop all missiles heading towards it command and control system! their is bound to be a whole made in the net!
now with cruise missile capabilities on both sides SEAD operations will be over within the first couple of hours! this will be followed by going after the airforce bases of the enemy & fuel refineries!
S-300 is a good protection system but even that cannot stop all missiles heading towards it command and control system! their is bound to be a whole made in the net!
jarnee
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 0
God forbid and good sense prevails.. however in case Nuclear war happens.. obviously Pakistan will strike first, but just want to know ..how much destruction can one strike bring? Will it be equal to one at Hiroshima? ..meaning one city destroyed..or would it be more?
Similar threads
- Article
