1983 - Pakistan threatened to destroy Indian nuclear program in retaliation.

[Kompromat]

PM Indira Gandhi may have considered destroying Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme when she returned to office in 1980. Though Ramanna had declined to go into specifics, he had recalled to TOI that in 1983, when he was in Vienna to attend an International Atomic Energy Agency meet, he was "warned" by ex-chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Munir Ahmed Khan that if India hit its nuclear facilities, Pakistan would launch a retaliatory strike at BARC, Trombay, in Mumbai, the heart of India's nuclear weapons programme. Ramanna immediately informed Indira about the dangerous consequences of bombing Pakistan's nuclear establishment and the operation was stopped.

The story goes that when Khan was attending the IAEA meet, he received a classified coded message about India's plans through the Pakistani ex-ambassador to Vienna, Abdul Sattar. That night, Khan invited Ramanna for dinner at the Imperial Hotel and the two arch rivals talked for a while. Then the moment arrived when Khan decided to say why he had suddenly called for the dinner meeting: it was not to exchange pleasantries but to deliver a stiff warning about the retaliatory strike on BARC. In the book 'Nuclear Deception' by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, it is stated that India's plan was code-named 'Osirak Contingency', after the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear weapons plant at Osirak, 18 miles south of Baghdad, in 1981.According to the book, ex-IAF chief Dilbaug Singh was to have commanded the Pakistani operation and had ordered a Jaguar squadron to practice low-level flying with 2,000-pound bombs - a squadron had been kept on standby at the Jamnagar air force base to carry out the attack at a moment's notice.

How the father of Indian N-bomb stalled strike on Pak nuclear sites - The Times of India

 

[Spectre]

PM Indira Gandhi may have considered destroying Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme when she returned to office in 1980. Though Ramanna had declined to go into specifics, he had recalled to TOI that in 1983, when he was in Vienna to attend an International Atomic Energy Agency meet, he was "warned" by ex-chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Munir Ahmed Khan that if India hit its nuclear facilities, Pakistan would launch a retaliatory strike at BARC, Trombay, in Mumbai, the heart of India's nuclear weapons programme. Ramanna immediately informed Indira about the dangerous consequences of bombing Pakistan's nuclear establishment and the operation was stopped.

The story goes that when Khan was attending the IAEA meet, he received a classified coded message about India's plans through the Pakistani ex-ambassador to Vienna, Abdul Sattar. That night, Khan invited Ramanna for dinner at the Imperial Hotel and the two arch rivals talked for a while. Then the moment arrived when Khan decided to say why he had suddenly called for the dinner meeting: it was not to exchange pleasantries but to deliver a stiff warning about the retaliatory strike on BARC. In the book 'Nuclear Deception' by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, it is stated that India's plan was code-named 'Osirak Contingency', after the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear weapons plant at Osirak, 18 miles south of Baghdad, in 1981.According to the book, ex-IAF chief Dilbaug Singh was to have commanded the Pakistani operation and had ordered a Jaguar squadron to practice low-level flying with 2,000-pound bombs - a squadron had been kept on standby at the Jamnagar air force base to carry out the attack at a moment's notice.

How the father of Indian N-bomb stalled strike on Pak nuclear sites - The Times of India

I have mixed feelings:

If they India had attacked and destroyed Pakistan's nuclear facility and Pakistan retaliated with the same result then sub-continent would have been a safer place with no nukes. But without the threat of nuclear annihilation and it's stability deterrent effect many more wars would have been fought. On the other hand nuclear war would be the last one with no second chances.

 

[Kompromat]

Our strike in Mumbai would've melted the reactor and Indian strikes in Pakistan would've done the same, thousands of people would have died with radiation.

I have mixed feelings:

If they India had attacked and destroyed Pakistan's nuclear facility and Pakistan retaliated with the same result then sub-continent would have been a safer place with no nukes. But without the threat of nuclear annihilation and it's stability deterrent effect many more wars would have been fought. On the other hand nuclear war would be the last one with no second chances.

 

[WAJsal]

PM Indira Gandhi may have considered destroying Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme when she returned to office in 1980. Though Ramanna had declined to go into specifics, he had recalled to TOI that in 1983, when he was in Vienna to attend an International Atomic Energy Agency meet, he was "warned" by ex-chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Munir Ahmed Khan that if India hit its nuclear facilities, Pakistan would launch a retaliatory strike at BARC, Trombay, in Mumbai, the heart of India's nuclear weapons programme. Ramanna immediately informed Indira about the dangerous consequences of bombing Pakistan's nuclear establishment and the operation was stopped.

The story goes that when Khan was attending the IAEA meet, he received a classified coded message about India's plans through the Pakistani ex-ambassador to Vienna, Abdul Sattar. That night, Khan invited Ramanna for dinner at the Imperial Hotel and the two arch rivals talked for a while. Then the moment arrived when Khan decided to say why he had suddenly called for the dinner meeting: it was not to exchange pleasantries but to deliver a stiff warning about the retaliatory strike on BARC. In the book 'Nuclear Deception' by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, it is stated that India's plan was code-named 'Osirak Contingency', after the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear weapons plant at Osirak, 18 miles south of Baghdad, in 1981.According to the book, ex-IAF chief Dilbaug Singh was to have commanded the Pakistani operation and had ordered a Jaguar squadron to practice low-level flying with 2,000-pound bombs - a squadron had been kept on standby at the Jamnagar air force base to carry out the attack at a moment's notice.

How the father of Indian N-bomb stalled strike on Pak nuclear sites - The Times of India

Munir Ahmed Khan- this man has done so much for the country, it's a shame that most people hardly know the man, let alone his work for the nation. What a shame.
On topic: India certainly did plan to bomb Kahuta, understanding the dangers involved, India backed out.

I have mixed feelings:

If they India had attacked and destroyed Pakistan's nuclear facility and Pakistan retaliated with the same result then sub-continent would have been a safer place with no nukes. But without the threat of nuclear annihilation and it's stability deterrent effect many more wars would have been fought. On the other hand nuclear war would be the last one with no second chances.

Quite a sharif perspective, lol. To be a little more serious, if India did attack Kahuta, Pakistan had other routes other than Uranium, something India didn't know about till we tested it, code named Chagai 2. We would still have nuclear weapons. To answer your post, no nuclear weapons keep both countries at bay....

Our strike in Mumbai would've melted the reactor and Indian strikes in Pakistan would've done the same, thousands of people would have died with radiation.

Indeed, realizing the dangers India backed out. Do you know about operation Sentiel?

 

[Kompromat]

Pakistan had also planned a contingency for Sri Lanka. India and Israel were trying to use Sri Lanka as a transit for strikes on Kahuta. The ISI had planned an operation to send in teams of ZARRAR Special Forces to attack and destroy the jets when they landed in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan govt was on good terms with Pakistan and refused to be part of any misadventure against a friendly country.

 

[Parashu]

so what ? even india planned op. opera(?) style attack on Pakistan with help of Israel

 

[Stag112]

India's behaviour is that of a rational person, of recognizing danger, doing a cost benefit analyses and giving value to self preservation over hatred.

We say, its better to have a wise enemy than to have a crazy friend.

 

[Spectre]

Pakistan had also planned a contingency for Sri Lanka. India and Israel were trying to use Sri Lanka as a transit for strikes on Kahuta. The ISI had planned an operation to send in teams of ZARRAR Special Forces to attack and destroy the jets when they landed in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan govt was on good terms with Pakistan and refused to be part of any misadventure against a friendly country.

Why would India and Israel use Srilanka, geographically it does not make sense. May be you can elaborate?

 

[Kompromat]

Yea...this attack was planned in retaliation to what India was planning with Israel.

so what ? even india planned op. opera(?) style attack on Pakistan with help of Israel

 

[Blue Marlin]

i though it was a joint attempt from both Israel and india. isreal would shoot down a jet and use its call sign and have in close formation to represent one jet and then take out kahuta and head of to jammu. Israel did not want to take full responsibility and would face a huge back lash from the middle east and paf has access to bases there too. also Pakistan conveyed messages that if kahuta were to be destroyed then so would thrombay in india and dimona in the negev desert in isreal. india were the ones who stopped the operation because they did not want trombay to be destroyed to face larger threat from nuclear armed china and face the huge retaliation that would come after the strike.

 

[Kompromat]

Plausible deniability factor. India would have simply denied any involvement since the attack was to be carried out by Israel through a third party.

Why would India and Israel use Srilanka, geographically it does not make sense. May be you can elaborate?

PAF actually "planned and practiced" ramming jets into invading aircraft if they ran out of ammo to shoot especially enemy tankers and AWACs.

i though it was a joint attempt from both Israel and india. isreal would shoot down a jet and use its call sign and have in close formation to represent one jet and then take out kahuta and head of to jammu. Israel did not want to take full responsibility and would face a huge back lash from the middle east and paf has access to bases there too. also Pakistan conveyed messages that if kahuta were to be destroyed then so would thrombay in india and dimona in the negev desert in isreal. india were the ones who stopped the operation because they did not want trombay to be destroyed to face larger threat from nuclear armed china and face the huge retaliation that would come after the strike.

 

[Parashu]

Yea...this attack was planned in retaliation to what India was planning with Israel.

well, didn't know that....:/

 

[Blue Marlin]

Plausible deniability factor. India would have simply denied any involvement since the attack was to be carried out by Israel through a third party.



PAF actually "planned and practiced" ramming jets into invading aircraft if they ran out of ammo to shoot especially enemy tankers and AWACs.

it called plane rolling the RAF did this against v1 cruise missiles they would simply go under the edge of there wing and as they rolled up so would the other plane and then once the roll was to great it would simply lose control and fall out of the sky

 

[nForce]

1984 - Siachen

 

[[Bregs]]

Lol sometimes for a change we must also make some threads where India and Pakistan are not trying to destroy to each other