What's new

Does India Need Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Your basic premises; aka "Guesses" are very incorrect; to start with...............................:-)
Unfortunately , something which the whole Cold Start is based on . Prediction/Guesses/Assumptions , nothing concrete . What war is controllable seriously as people think ?
 

Capt.Popeye

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2010
11,940
12
14,912
Unfortunately , something which the whole Cold Start is based on . Prediction/Guesses/Assumptions , nothing concrete . What war is controllable seriously as people think ?
Who says that War (actually the results thereof) is controllable? Where did you get that idea from? :azn:

Even what is touted to be CSD is just an assumption.

What the Indian Army has been working on and repeatedly refining and re-defining is the preparations for warfare; most notably the mobilization of Forces in various Scenarios.
Which is quite within the Realm of Controllability!! :-)
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Who says that War (actually the results thereof) is controllable? Where did you get that idea from? :azn:

Even what is touted to be CSD is just an assumption.

What the Indian Army has been working on and repeatedly refining and re-defining is the preparations for warfare; most notably the mobilization of Forces in various Scenarios.
Which is quite within the Realm of Controllability!! :-)
Well , isn't it what the whole CSD is about ? Controlling a war and not allowing the adversary to go nuclear , I do not really understand where did the Indian planners get that idea from . Because , seriously predictions of vague , dynamic and fluid thresholds , fighting a war and achieving desired results ( whatever they might be ) without significantly denting the conventional capability of the adversary ( a red-line in itself ) isn't possible . Because otherwise the enemy is capable enough to retake what was captured/invaded .

A flawed assumption . So , shorter ,mobilization time or less time required for the forces to get to the D-Day readiness state , a controllability indicator ? :D

It is India's stated position that any use of nukes on it's territory or it's forces will invite a disproportionate and all out nuclear response. The reason that bolded part is part of our doctrine, is precisely to show that it doesn't matter on who's territory it happens.
Pakistan's stated position is that the crossing of any of its thresholds or red-lines is sufficient reason enough to go " nuclear " - a tactical weapon to sound a warning before we all go MAD . This is as simple as it gets . Rest assured , that there's no guarantee , none whatsoever that CSD doesn't cross any Pakistani threshold . These assurances and quotations of past Indian " goodwill or the supposed love " are meaningless .

Yes , of course. The reality is simply this........Nukes will not prevent War/Conflicts, but Nukes will certainly prevent only Nuke Wars/Conflicts.
Well , they actually have . I have no memory of two nuclear powers fighting a war after going properly " nuclear " .

Because in such a case, it wouldn't matter how much conventional superiority we have against Pakistan - as soon as our divisions or battle groups move into Pakistan, they can simply use low yield nukes to wipe them out.
Just out of curiosity , do you think that it crosses any " real " thresholds , hypothetically ? Is the existence and integrity of India threatened ?
 

Capt.Popeye

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2010
11,940
12
14,912
Well , isn't it what the whole CSD is about ? Controlling a war and not allowing the adversary to go nuclear , I do not really understand where did the Indian planners get that idea from . Because , seriously predictions of vague , dynamic and fluid thresholds , fighting a war and achieving desired results ( whatever they might be ) without significantly denting the conventional capability of the adversary ( a red-line in itself ) isn't possible . Because otherwise the enemy is capable enough to retake what was captured/invaded .

A flawed assumption . So , shorter ,mobilization time or less time required for the forces to get to the D-Day readiness state , a controllability indicator ? :D


Well , they actually have . I have no memory of two nuclear powers fighting a war after going properly " nuclear " .

Loll; now you are making all the assumptions here. :D
What is touted around as CSD is an assumption to start with.

Then the Moblization Doctrines of the IA is all oriented towards "Conventional Warfare" NOT Nuclear Warfare as you again assume.

Finally; (wrt to the underlined part) which Countries have gone Nuclear so far; and not indulged in warfare of some form or the other? Since I did'nt notice what you did. :D

On Planet Earth; I mean................:-)

So again; Nukes do not prevent War/Conflict, they can only prevent Nuclear War!
 
Last edited:

janon

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 19, 2011
9,895
2
18,180
Country
India
Location
India
Pakistan's stated position is that the crossing of any of its thresholds or red-lines is sufficient reason enough to go " nuclear " - a tactical weapon to sound a warning before we all go MAD . This is as simple as it gets . Rest assured , that there's no guarantee , none whatsoever that CSD doesn't cross any Pakistani threshold . These assurances and quotations of past Indian " goodwill or the supposed love " are meaningless .
And what is this CSD? The existence of such a doctrine has been denied by the Indian military. (In 'Yes, minister' somebody sardonically warns not to believe any rumour until it is officially denied, but that apart...)

These theories floating around that CSD is some new Chanakyan scheme to wage war on Pakistan and yet remain a teeny bit under the nuclear threshhold is simply balderdash. That won't even be profitable for India, because India could well end up losing a tiny clash - India's conventional superiority will not come into play in such a conflict. So starting a small conflict just to prove a point cannot be India's grand strategy.

The changes in operational philosophy over the past decade were simply to improve mobilization times, and to reorganize our fighting arms into leaner forces. To fight as divisions instead of at corps level. These are changes that should have taken place before, but didn't. All modern armies in the west made these changes long ago.

What exactly is India's strategy to fight a war in future, I don't know, and IMO nobody other than professionals do. We often portray China as being super secretive, but the fact is that the Indian military is equally secretive about its doctrines and strategies. Equipments and purchases are another matter - those are paid for by the taxpayer, and open to public scrutiny.

Well , they actually have . I have no memory of two nuclear powers fighting a war after going properly " nuclear " .
Other than USSR-USA and India-Pak, has there been hostilities between nuclear powers? USA and USSR did enter a lot of conflicts, although not on their own soil. In Korea and Vietnam Soviet and American pilots have shot each other down. Afghanistan...

India and Pak are not superpowers, and therefore unlikely to fight proxy wars on foreign shores.

Just out of curiosity , do you think that it crosses any " real " thresholds , hypothetically ? Is the existence and integrity of India threatened ?
Sorry, I did not understand the question. Could you explain that, please?
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
And what is this CSD? The existence of such a doctrine has been denied by the Indian military. (In 'Yes, minister' somebody sardonically warns not to believe any rumour until it is officially denied, but that apart...)

These theories floating around that CSD is some new Chanakyan scheme to wage war on Pakistan and yet remain a teeny bit under the nuclear threshhold is simply balderdash. That won't even be profitable for India, because India could well end up losing a tiny clash - India's conventional superiority will not come into play in such a conflict. So starting a small conflict just to prove a point cannot be India's grand strategy.

The changes in operational philosophy over the past decade were simply to improve mobilization times, and to reorganize our fighting arms into leaner forces. To fight as divisions instead of at corps level. These are changes that should have taken place before, but didn't. All modern armies in the west made these changes long ago.

What exactly is India's strategy to fight a war in future, I don't know, and IMO nobody other than professionals do. We often portray China as being super secretive, but the fact is that the Indian military is equally secretive about its doctrines and strategies. Equipments and purchases are another matter - those are paid for by the taxpayer, and open to public scrutiny.

Other than USSR-USA and India-Pak, has there been hostilities between nuclear powers? USA and USSR did enter a lot of conflicts, although not on their own soil. In Korea and Vietnam Soviet and American pilots have shot each other down. Afghanistan...

India and Pak are not superpowers, and therefore unlikely to fight proxy wars on foreign shores.

Sorry, I did not understand the question. Could you explain that, please?
Well , it does appear that Indian planners have in mind from after mobilizing and backing off because of the nuclear threat , some sort of " controllable war " strategy , modified from the older Sundar-ji doctrine for swift strikes into adversary's territory whilst well assumingly remaining under the nuclear thresholds - since well the obvious thing is an all out war can go into an uncontrolled spiral leading to MAD . I am willing to believe that such a doctrine exists , because of the recent exercises ( with main focus on reduction on mobilization time ) and acquistions by both countries . However , certainty of course is absurd . The threat of the perception of it has been enough to force Islamabad to pursue Tactical Nuclear Weapons . Denial , mate , isn't a proof on non-existence . I said the same " What is India hoping to gain by it ? " to a certain member from your country because I couldn't think of anything that would explain New Delhi going ahead with such plan , which in most likely case , has a high probability of leading to the same nuclear escalation which is well beyond anyone's control . But since you do not believe in it , there's little reason for continuing with it further .

Direct conflicts are very different than fighting proxy war in foreign lands . I hope we understand that , rest assured we both fight proxy wars in each other countries without any escalation . Well the question is that " Why would the Indians be willing to go for strategic strikes and begin the race for MAD , when the existence and integrity of the country isn't threatened - a false threshold case ( just for the sake of a declared response ) if any IBG's or Corp is nuked in Pakistani territory ? "
 

janon

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 19, 2011
9,895
2
18,180
Country
India
Location
India
...
Denial , mate , isn't a proof on non-existence . I said the same " What is India hoping to gain by it ? " to a certain member from your country because I couldn't think of anything that would explain New Delhi going ahead with such plan , which in most likely case , has a high probability of leading to the same nuclear escalation which is well beyond anyone's control . But since you do not believe in it , there's little reason for continuing with it further .
...
Denial is not proof of non-existence, but is there any proof for its existence? BTW, in a way it is now that we are implementing Sunderji's doctrine. His vision 2000 was that the army should be a highly mechanized and highly mobile force. That never went into fruition because of the economic crisis of the 90s, and our consequent inability to procure enough armoured vehicles and helicopters. Now we are catching up on both fronts, and in a position to put his plan into action - that of fielding highly mobile and sleek fighting formations capable of independent operations in enemy territory. The so called IBGs and RAPIDs.

This was always the vision outlined for the army, since the 80s. The only difference now is in the aims, not in the method. The aim in Sunderji's time was total war, which each country was likely to go into, as in '71. In that case, the holding corps would engage PA on multiple points, make the reserves rear their head, and then the strike corps would destroy the reserves and cut the country in two. Now that both countries are nuclear, and there is no possibility of total war, the aim has changed, but not the method. The aim now is to make Pakistan pay a price for any misadventure, like the parliament attacks or 26/11. (Yes, I know we were not in a position to do so in 2009, at least not by conventional means.) But the method remains the same - pivot corps with enough firepower would do shallow incursions, while the strike corps would prevent PA's strike corps from blitzkrieging our smaller sized formations.
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The aim now is to make Pakistan pay a price for any misadventure, like the parliament attacks or 26/11. (Yes, I know we were not in a position to do so in 2009, at least not by conventional means.) But the method remains the same - pivot corps with enough firepower would do shallow incursions, while the strike corps would prevent PA's strike corps from blitzkrieging our smaller sized formations.
So , why deny the CSD's existence in the first place ? What do you consider it then ? I mean I am amazed , this is exactly what is considered as such . Only that you didn't add that it will be shallow incursions to try to control it :D

Unfortunately , even with such method of war , there's no guarantee that the adversary will not respond with a nuclear weapon . Pakistan's thresholds are not falsely low , they are naturally low .
 

janon

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 19, 2011
9,895
2
18,180
Country
India
Location
India
...
Well the question is that " Why would the Indians be willing to go for strategic strikes and begin the race for MAD , when the existence and integrity of the country isn't threatened - a false threshold case ( just for the sake of a declared response ) if any IBG's or Corp is nuked in Pakistani territory ? "
Put yourself in our shoes, and ask yourself, why wouldn't we? We have a 'No first use policy' for nukes. The logical corollary to a NFU policy is one of massive retaliation. If we don't use nukes as a warfighting tool, then our conventional forces are all we have - our only wall of defence, our only sword of vengeance. And if our conventional superiority over the enemy amounts to nought because the enemy uses nukes on them, what do you think we can or will do? Simply tell the remaining soldiers to trot back home? After all, why do we even have a 'No first use' policy? To hold on to the moral high ground. Once Pakistan nukes our soldiers, that barrier has been crossed.

Why do you think we would maintain one of the largest militaries on the planet at great expense, if there was no circumstance under which they can wage war? If it is how you describe, that Pak can have a policy that the moment Indian soldiers cross the border they will be vaporized with nukes, what do you think our policy can be? As I said, put yourself in our shoes and think. Should we simpl accept that Pakistan can keep bleeding us through a thousand cuts? If a mumbai massacre is repeated tomorrow, then another the next month, and then another in another month and so on, don't you think there will come a time when India will decide to do punitive strikes? And don't you think India would be well aware of all consequences? What would you do, if you were an Indian planner, and Pak kept using non-state-terrorists to attack us?

So , why deny the CSD's existence in the first place ? What do you consider it then ? I mean I am amazed , this is exactly what is considered as such . Only that you didn't add that it will be shallow incursions to try to control it :D

Unfortunately , even with such method of war , there's no guarantee that the adversary will not respond with a nuclear weapon . Pakistan's thresholds are not falsely low , they are naturally low .
If that's what CSD is, it has always been there. Anyway, there are other ways to respond too. How about airstrikes on military formations?

Anyway, check out my previous post about the last part. As for the last sentence - it is amusing to me that Pakistanis and Indians both seem to think that only Pakistan can have a "low threshold", and India is expected to be the saner, discretionary entity. @Oscar earlier mentioned the possibility of the nuclear chain of command coming under a wannabe martyr type. Why is it that only one side has to be constantly afraid of the other side not behaving rationally?

India's thresholds are very clear, as I said - any use of nukes, will be responded with nukes. In a way India's threshold is zero, if nukes have been used against our forces. And that is the only logical possibility for us. Pakistan is not the only country that can threaten mutual annihilation. It seems to me that everybody is expecting India to value civilization and human lives, even if 15,000 patriotic such humans have been nuked. In war, the 'rational choice theory' may not apply, and it is not only Pakistanis who should be expected to violate it.
 
Last edited:

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
34,945
401
72,792
Country
United States
Location
United States
India's thresholds are very clear, as I said - any use of nukes, will be responded with nukes. In a way India's threshold is zero, if nukes have been used against our forces. And that is the only logical possibility for us. Pakistan is not the only country that can threaten mutual annihilation. It seems to me that everybody is expecting India to value civilization and human lives, even if 15,000 patriotic such humans have been nuked. In war, the 'rational choice theory' may not apply, and it is not only Pakistanis who should be expected to violate it.
Because that is the only hope that keeps us out of nuclear holocaust. The rational and calculating Indian leadership which has and is still far better than anything Pakistan has thrown up(democratically or through the gods gift to earth way). If that assumption is lost, then there is a likely chance that if an Indian leader decides one day that a surprise nuclear strike will take Pakistan out totally.. then he/she has written the obituary for India as well. There is no winner with us, Unlike the Americans or Russians with their vast farm lands and massive places that might survive the aftermath of an attack.. our countries are smaller, more populated and much less prepared to last beyond the nuclear attack. There is a movie, which I recommend to all those contemplating, or just brainstorming the nuclear equation within our two third world nations. its called "the day after".. and once you see that, you'll realize that what is depicted in that movie is going to much much worse for us.
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Put yourself in our shoes, and ask yourself, why wouldn't we? We have a 'No first use policy' for nukes. The logical corollary to a NFU policy is one of massive retaliation. If we don't use nukes as a warfighting tool, then our conventional forces are all we have - our only wall of defence, our only sword of vengeance. And if our conventional superiority over the enemy amounts to nought because the enemy uses nukes on them, what do you think we can or will do? Simply tell the remaining soldiers to trot back home? After all, why do we even have a 'No first use' policy? To hold on to the moral high ground. Once Pakistan nukes our soldiers, that barrier has been crossed.

Why do you think we would maintain one of the largest militaries on the planet at great expense, if there was no circumstance under which they can wage war? If it is how you describe, that Pak can have a policy that the moment Indian soldiers cross the border they will be vaporized with nukes, what do you think our policy can be? As I said, put yourself in our shoes and think. Should we simpl accept that Pakistan can keep bleeding us through a thousand cuts? If a mumbai massacre is repeated tomorrow, then another the next month, and then another in another month and so on, don't you think there will come a time when India will decide to do punitive strikes? And don't you think India would be well aware of all consequences? What would you do, if you were an Indian planner, and Pak kept using non-state-terrorists to attack us?


If that's what CSD is, it has always been there. Anyway, there are other ways to respond too. How about airstrikes on military formations?

Anyway, check out my previous post about the last part. As for the last sentence - it is amusing to me that Pakistanis and Indians both seem to think that only Pakistan can have a "low threshold", and India is expected to be the saner, discretionary entity. @Oscar earlier mentioned the possibility of the nuclear chain of command coming under a wannabe martyr type. Why is it that only one side has to be constantly afraid of the other side not behaving rationally?

India's thresholds are very clear, as I said - any use of nukes, will be responded with nukes. In a way India's threshold is zero, if nukes have been used against our forces. And that is the only logical possibility for us. Pakistan is not the only country that can threaten mutual annihilation. It seems to me that everybody is expecting India to value civilization and human lives, even if 15,000 patriotic such humans have been nuked. In war, the 'rational choice theory' may not apply, and it is not only Pakistanis who should be expected to violate it.
What logic does war follow to talk of it ? All the assumptions of logic are pre-war , not really after it starts . Maybe , because its illogical and madness to risk the whole population for some invading IBG's / Corps ? If I were to put myself there , I would ask first . Why am I crossing the border ? What is to be gained by the whole operation ? What is the guarantee that it will not escalate beyond what I have been calculated ? How far am I pushing the other side and what does it mean for me ? Am I losing more than what I am gaining ? Whatever it is that I am looking for , is there another possible way to get it ? The No First Use policy is a part of deterrence concept , now the resulting response can be massive or flexible . For some reason , it is always assumed to be the first . Understandable , the official nuclear doctrine says so . But each strike after the first , takes us one step further in the escalation ladder . What possible way lies there to avoid it ? Still the question is " How can someone factor in the nuclear response by the adversary ? " as you said . How to be certain of the whole thing . This simple thing keeps nations at bay . Its your decision always to maintain the moral high ground , it doesn't make any difference to your rivals . At the end of the day , India cant defeat Pakistan by whatever means imaginable . The stakes are just too high and there is more to be lost than gained .

You can always wage war , when am I denying that ? I am only saying that the result of war - all out or limited between two nuclear powers isn't going to be ' victory ' for anyone . I have seen members from the other side of the border debating with me , how they would get in fast , punish Pakistan without crossing the nuclear threshold and then get out . Mission completed , somehow India always comes out on top in those scenarios . What we usually miss is that we are talking about the seventh largest army in the world , does one seriously think they do not have significant capability to deter an invasion or hold their ground in the sort of limited conflict that you envision ? I never said anything about using nuclear weapons when the first Indians cross the border , you just assumed it on my behalf , based on the common misconception . The army will counter the enemy and reserve the tactical weapon when its no longer in control of the situation . The only reason that can prompt Pakistan's " nuclear " response is the crossing of a red-line or a threshold , the thing being that whatever you call CSD will always require to cross a threshold - significantly denting the country's conventional capability , which would mean next the existence and integrity is threatened . Even then , a tactical nuclear weapon is the final warning to look for some " sanity " before the measure of the last resort kicks in . The thing about Nasr is , it adds a whole new level of uncertainty to counter , because Islamabad indicates that it wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon on invading troops if things go out of hand . Now I know that expecting India to back down if such a thing happens wouldn't be acceptable to the Indian political leadership but the same " bluff " will work to keep armies in the barracks , because now there's a possibility of inviting a nuclear response even in a limited conflict . Its a worse dilemma , so the enemy will think again before trying to implement the whole thing . You couldn't factor in the nuclear response for the last four times and today the thresholds have gone further low , so if nothing has changed in that regard . Who's to say that Pakistani deterrent has failed ? Nuclear weapons do prevent wars , after all .

Not this again . Should I simply accept that Pakistan is a bad guy here and you are the good guy ? If we have adopted a policy of thousand cuts , then you have reciprocated in kind all the time . Where's the Indian angel coming from ? Of all the things , this one bores me the most . The thought pattern that somehow New Delhi doesn't interfere or funds terrorism/ proxy wars in this country is false , there are historical facts and the evidences to prove it wrong . So , if attacks take place in your country , the same happens here too . Where's the boiling point scenario coming from ? No side is innocent to take that stance . Either stop it altogether and look to resolve the issues or continue with the limited conflict suicide plan . Otherwise , there's no reason to complain because it has been going on for decades from both sides .

Actually , this in indeed what CSD is , this isn't old , not at least in its " modern " form . The concept has been there , it just haven't given much thought as today . Now you might want to tell me , what do you understand by the Cold Start thing if not this new form of warfare ?

Now , when I said that Pakistan's thresholds are naturally low , what did you understand by it ? Our thresholds aren't low because we are " according to the popular Indian thinking " are a suicidal and irrational bunch . Thresholds aren't defined at will and set up anywhere , because then it wouldn't mean anything , the sole reason for this thresholds being such is the conventional massive disparity , geostrategic thing and geographical vulnerability . We are more likely to pull the trigger first because we are easily threatened because of the things I mentioned , hence the stance and the nuclear doctrine . I assume only this much rationality on the behalf of the Indians to not make the mistake of crossing the border and starting the chain reaction in the first place , not afterwards actually , which means that people expect India to value its own citizens and existence , not the supposed love for humanity and civilization . You are free to start the mutual annihilation sequence , who's ready for it is the real question .
 

janon

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 19, 2011
9,895
2
18,180
Country
India
Location
India
...
The thing about Nasr is , it adds a whole new level of uncertainty to counter , because Islamabad indicates that it wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon on invading troops if things go out of hand ...
Let me start off with this. Operationally, what capability does the Nasr give that a low yield bomb strapped to a mirage-3 or JF-17 doesn't? An air launched bomb is as good as a very short range missile like Nasr. There is no new capability that Pakistan gets with Nasr, that did not exist before. We have known that Pak has nuclear weapons, long before the Nasr was developed. Why is the Nasr being touted as some revolutionary new concept that blunts India's latest doctrines?
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Let me start off with this. Operationally, what capability does the Nasr give that a low yield bomb strapped to a mirage-3 or JF-17 doesn't? An air launched bomb is as good as a very short range missile like Nasr. There is no new capability that Pakistan gets with Nasr, that did not exist before. We have known that Pak has nuclear weapons, long before the Nasr was developed. Why is the Nasr being touted as some revolutionary new concept that blunts India's latest doctrines?
No , it is much more than that , we never had the concept of " tactical nuclear weapons " and gradual escalation before - neither there are any reports of low yield nuclear weapons in service with SFC . A low range ( quasi ) ballistic range is no technological marvel however its development gives a signal to opposition that thresholds have gone further down due to the growing conventional disparity and Pakistan might use it if its thresholds are crossed to counter the odds - a last signal before the measure of last resort . It adds more uncertainty to the whole scenario and game of bluffs . Its a strong message that even a limited scale conflict has a high likelihood of going out of hand . Its a poker game , you see ? One must read the piece by Dr. Shireen Mazari on the new doctrine that Islamabad appears to have adopted .
 

janon

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 19, 2011
9,895
2
18,180
Country
India
Location
India
What logic does war follow to talk of it ? All the assumptions of logic are pre-war , not really after it starts . That goes both ways. Pakistan's logic and assumptions about India are also pre-war, as is this entire thread. Maybe , because its illogical and madness to risk the whole population for some invading IBG's / Corps ?And from Pak's POV, it is illogical to risk the whole country just for a few square kms taken by an IBG. If I were to put myself there , I would ask first . Why am I crossing the border ? What is to be gained by the whole operation ?Punitive strike, to deter Pakistan from another misadventure like the Mumbai massacre. To send the message that actions have consequences, and then leave the ball in Pakistan's court whether to risk nuclear holocaust. What is the guarantee that it will not escalate beyond what I have been calculated ?No guarantees, but India will roll in only after the risk is accepted. If IBGs role in, that means that India has prepared to take the risk of nuclear holocaust, but is still leaving it to Pakistan whether to go that route or not. How far am I pushing the other side and what does it mean for me ? Am I losing more than what I am gaining ? Whatever it is that I am looking for , is there another possible way to get it ? Precisely. Only if there is no other way would India use its military. That has always been true with India, we have not rolled into Pakistan at every excuse, that was always true before the region went nuclear. The No First Use policy is a part of deterrence concept , now the resulting response can be massive or flexible . For some reason , it is always assumed to be the first . Understandable , the official nuclear doctrine says so . But each strike after the first , takes us one step further in the escalation ladder . What possible way lies there to avoid it ? It shouldn't be India alone that asks that question. Still the question is " How can someone factor in the nuclear response by the adversary ? " as you said . How to be certain of the whole thing . This simple thing keeps nations at bay . Yes, but for how long? Do you think that India's patience is infinite? Doesn't India have a threshold as well? Its your decision always to maintain the moral high ground , it doesn't make any difference to your rivals . At the end of the day , India cant defeat Pakistan by whatever means imaginable . The stakes are just too high and there is more to be lost than gained .

You can always wage war , when am I denying that ? I am only saying that the result of war - all out or limited between two nuclear powers isn't going to be ' victory ' for anyone . I have seen members from the other side of the border debating with me , how they would get in fast , punish Pakistan without crossing the nuclear threshold and then get out . Mission completed , somehow India always comes out on top in those scenarios . What we usually miss is that we are talking about the seventh largest army in the world , does one seriously think they do not have significant capability to deter an invasion or hold their ground in the sort of limited conflict that you envision ?Which is why I said earlier that the CSD as popularly envisaged cannot be India's grand strategy. In a very limited conflict, the two countries are evenly matched, and India's conventional superiority cannot come into play. I said so myself earlier. I never said anything about using nuclear weapons when the first Indians cross the border , you just assumed it on my behalf , based on the common misconception . The army will counter the enemy and reserve the tactical weapon when its no longer in control of the situation . The only reason that can prompt Pakistan's " nuclear " response is the crossing of a red-line or a threshold , the thing being that whatever you call CSD will always require to cross a threshold - significantly denting the country's conventional capability , which would mean next the existence and integrity is threatened . Even then , a tactical nuclear weapon is the final warning to look for some " sanity " before the measure of the last resort kicks in . For one thing, will your tactical nuke selectively kill Indian armyen? What if our tactics are to be always close to enemy formations? The thing about Nasr is , it adds a whole new level of uncertainty to counter , because Islamabad indicates that it wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon on invading troops if things go out of hand . Now I know that expecting India to back down if such a thing happens wouldn't be acceptable to the Indian political leadership but the same " bluff " will work to keep armies in the barracks , because now there's a possibility of inviting a nuclear response even in a limited conflict . Its a worse dilemma , so the enemy will think again before trying to implement the whole thing . You couldn't factor in the nuclear response for the last four timesLast four times? and today the thresholds have gone further low , so if nothing has changed in that regard . Who's to say that Pakistani deterrent has failed ? Nuclear weapons do prevent wars , after all .

Not this again . Should I simply accept that Pakistan is a bad guy here and you are the good guy ? If we have adopted a policy of thousand cuts , then you have reciprocated in kind all the time . Where's the Indian angel coming from ? Of all the things , this one bores me the most . The thought pattern that somehow New Delhi doesn't interfere or funds terrorism/ proxy wars in this country is false , there are historical facts and the evidences to prove it wrong . So , if attacks take place in your country , the same happens here too . Where's the boiling point scenario coming from ? No side is innocent to take that stance . Either stop it altogether and look to resolve the issues or continue with the limited conflict suicide plan . Otherwise , there's no reason to complain because it has been going on for decades from both sides .

Actually , this in indeed what CSD is , this isn't old , not at least in its " modern " form . The concept has been there , it just haven't given much thought as today . Now you might want to tell me , what do you understand by the Cold Start thing if not this new form of warfare ?

Now , when I said that Pakistan's thresholds are naturally low , what did you understand by it ? Our thresholds aren't low because we are " according to the popular Indian thinking " are a suicidal and irrational bunch . Thresholds aren't defined at will and set up anywhere , because then it wouldn't mean anything , the sole reason for this thresholds being such is the conventional massive disparity , geostrategic thing and geographical vulnerability . We are more likely to pull the trigger first because we are easily threatened because of the things I mentioned , hence the stance and the nuclear doctrine . I assume only this much rationality on the behalf of the Indians to not make the mistake of crossing the borderIs it too much to expect some sanity from Pakistanis as to not make the mistake of provoking India into crossing the border, with another parliament attack or 26/11? Now you see why everybody including you expect sanity from Indians, but not from yourself. and starting the chain reaction in the first place , not afterwards actually , which means that people expect India to value its own citizens and existence , not the supposed love for humanity and civilization . You are free to start the mutual annihilation sequence , It won't be we who start it - we have a NFU policy, remember? If Pakistan caries another ajor terror attack, and India responds by conventional means, and then Pak starts nulear war, don't lay the blame at India's feet. If we simply invade Pakistan out of the blue, then you could say we started it - that never happened before, and won't happen in future.who's ready for it is the real question .
My responses in red.
 

Secur

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2011
10,126
56
14,378
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Of course , all the assumption/logic(s) are pre-war , when did I restrict it to India only ? Only that you are planning to start a limited scale conflict , not the other way around . Pakistan isn't risking its country for a few sq.kms , as the popular myth goes , it just happens that in order for CSD to succeed and achieve required objectives - it must dent the conventional capability of Pakistan Army significantly - a high threshold , we know what will be next the use em or lose em , the problem is even the new " way of war " has a flaw by design which might explain why it hasn't been implemented yet , despite the existence of the same concept in different forms for long , because otherwise the forces are evenly matched because of the nature of the conflict . You seem to understand that . Both sides will face the dilemma and extreme uncertainty associated with the presence of nukes , but it is your side that is going to face it first , for its starting the whole chain reaction . If India has prepared to take the risk of nuclear holocaust , then all bets are off . This assumption of " making Pakistan play by your rules in its own territory " is flawed at best . However , the past isn't with you , there are numerous examples that confirm New Delhi hasn't ever able been to factor in the nuclear response , hence despite wanting to teach a lesson , it has to restrain itself and calm the nation down , the four such instances are '87 Op.Brasstacks - blitzkrieg like assault and Hoon confirming its real nature , the Kargil war - no permission to cross the LOC let alone the IB , Op.Parakram - mobilization and subsequent backing off , Mumbai attacks - warnings come but the attack doesn't . I am aware of the usual excuses given for each of them , but I also know the mood inside your country and the urge to attack at those times and that their objectives weren't achieved . Suffice to say that the Pakistani deterrent works , now if it has worked in the past , what has changed in that regard if I may know to not work in the future too ? Its even more difficult today seeing the " gradual escalation " adopted doctrine on the other side and SFC signalling an " all spectrum deterrence " .

I asked what is Cold Start as per you ? Because , you aren't even certain of that . Mate , why keep rubbing the " Indian angel " in my face seriously ? Do you really think I would believe all the provocation is from one side whilst the other does nothing ? Do you think its only the evil Pakistanis doing the cross border terrorism or funding proxy wars ? There have been attacks far worse than Mumbai in Pakistan . No , you do the same , its mutual , you have been interfering in Baluchistan and F.A.T.A. for long now . You were the ones who trained the whole Mukti Bahini and interfered in East Pakistan .

Why is it always the " Indian patience " that has to run out / runs out ? :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom