A Race Pakistan Cannot Possibly Win

[CriticalThought]

Nobody is dismissing it. Be the moniker you have and think about what is being said.

My 'original' post was to exhibit the fallacy of the persistent belief here of NASR being a super weapon to stop Armoured Divisions.

Somehow, it has become a major trend in PDF to bring everything to the level of NASR and use of Nuclear Weapons at a Tactical level. This has led to a serious embedding of the view that the advent of TNWs on subcontinental field, is an assurance of security. Whereas, it merely brings down the threshold. I shall elaborate on it a bit more subsequently.

The datum was posted to exhibit the requirement of number of weapons to effectively neutralize an armoured division in a theoretical manner without getting in to specifics. One merely needs to correlate the numbers required as calculated, to the industrial capacity of the nation to reprocess and enrich and also the availability of nuclear material in first place. The latter is severely limited. So, the number of nuclear devices that a nation can make quickly is limited. Of course, I do give the members the right to self delude and assume that it is available on demand and wish.

There were two very 'interesting' points made by the Pakistani CriticalThought member as under -

a. The Pakistan army has more resources than you see in the annual budget of the State of Pakistan. Where do you think we got 100+ Thunders from? Our defence is seen as being of a strategic nature by China.

b. Typical Indian delusions regarding an enemy that has been amassing nuclear material for over a decade.

When a member makes such statements, one can understand just how seriously they are to be taken.

You can appreciate the laughs I get when member asserts Pakistan Army has greater budget than whole of Pakistan. No wonder they are forever on verge of default. And they have been amassing since over a decade. Wonder what India has been doing since 1964?




What, in your opinion, is a Nuclear Umbrella? And what do you take away from the bold, what do you understand of the statement?




That is your assumption.

I have been at odds with members of my fraternity for sometime over whether Pakistan is rationally irrational (hence their threat of nuclear weapons every other day and across the media) or whether they are genuinely irrational. The majority (and my view) is of view of former, that they are deliberately being irrational. And their achievement of drawing funds from US in garb of support to WoT over the past decade and a half, while strengthening their Nuclear Command and Control from same funds meant for same purpose (by playing on fears of Jihadis gaining control) exhibits the skillful and effective employment of this tactic to achieve their aims.

What I know of Pakistani Armed Forces, does not correlate with irrationality. Having said that, the TNWs are improbable, meant for domestic consumption and hardly to be taken seriously militarily. But they are very effective diplomatic tools, as nations around the world genuinely take them crazy enough to do something as stupid as use them.

Had they been willing to use the TNWs, you would have seen an unprecedented spike in violence in Kashmir. What does that tell you? Present level of violence is hardly a fraction of the peaks of 90s.



Let me put another point for you.

The smallest device we have, is for a 155 mm Caliber Artillery Gun.

Suppose we declare a First Use policy as they have. What will you, as a commander, assume when India fires the first artillery gun?

If you look at the statements emanating from Pakistan, from MIRVs to Cruise Missiles to NASR, everything is nuclear this or that. By doing so, they are already negating their own defences because while Indian policy calls for No First Strike, the mere fact that there is a line in India's Nuclear Doctrine which states that 'the use or threat of use of Nuclear, Biological, Chemical & Radiological Weapons' is enough to indicate the possibility of India mistaking a conventional rocket/missile attack as a nuclear attack. Such a move clearly shows the reckless behaviour of the opposite side.

India has clearly delineated it's weapon's systems for these very reasons. eg BrahMos has been kept exclusively for conventional strikes.



Further, there are plenty of Army Chair Generals on this thread, and posting to every idiotic claim/assertion is a painful task.

Refer to Effects of Nuclear Weapons by Samuel Glasstone & Philip J Dolan. It remains a good work on the Nuclear Weapons and understanding the whole concept.

Also, militarily, as a commander, I would like to use my nuclear weapon in a counterforce strike, to achieve a 'breakthrough'. There is always a height where the radioactive fallout is minimal. The data for nominal bomb (called as a 20 Kt bomb because of use in Japan and data for the same is available) is available. Please be advised to go through that.

With an air burst at the ideal height, the primary casualties will be from shock and thermal effects of a nuclear weapons. With a negligible fallout (fallout is made up of debris and dust sucked up in near surface/surface blast which settles back on ground and gives rise to NIGA in long run in soil in near vicinity where the sand/debris is redeposited on land), as a Commander, I shall be able to take my troops in their MOPP and exploit the breach.

Just some pointers. Do the research.

Regards

LOLZZZZZ!!!!! Unable to defend the dispersion of advancing columns due to Nasr, now outright denying the possibility of its use. Leadership in the Indian Army: Feed them the lies they want to hear, then sit back and watch cannon fodder getting mowed down on the front lines.

@The Deterrent we are doomed! Nasr is just a buffoon.

 

[Hellfire]

@Hephaestus

I do agree, one must leave this forum. Ignorants hold titles. Not much to learn here. My only reason for coming here is that I hope to drive in some sense to idiots that are sprouting here.

@Arsalan

Nah Bro. This place sucks big time.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Hi!
Instead of wasting time, Please use it wisely, like maybe learning something etc. Unfortunately the quality of posts(thanks to fanboys from both the sides) have gone down the drain, I firmly believe there should be some minimum educational criteria for this forum. Just because one has right to speak, doesnt necessarily imply that one should use it. One should exercise such right with proper credible proofs and literature to make the case, otherwise it bears no credibility whatsoever.
Also as for the nuclear war is concerned I firmly believe in the idea of MIT prof Dr Vipin Narang i.e India should have a flexible nuclear posture vis-a-vis Pakistan: India should have flexible targeting options and even pre-emptive strikes against battlefield nuclear weapons should she feel that their use is imminent by Pakistani field commanders. I am pretty sure judging by the literature of Shivshankar Menon et al. India does seem to be shifting the nuclear posture slightly vis-a-vis Pakistan.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sigh.

And I thought we were talking of conventional war in a nuclear backdrop. Head back to your very first quoting me addressing a point to an Indian member. Go through all your posts. Understand the intent.

In the age of machine learning and autonomous systems, I personally would call any war an un-conventional war. Maybe we can call it quasi-conventional? The point is, you need to modernize your thinking.

Recall the reference to accumulating material for over a decade? What do you think India has been doing since 1950s and especially after 1964?

I have never doubted Indian capability. I am merely refuting your allegation that we don't have enough warheads. You do understand that more than a decade encompasses all time frames above a decade?

Simple query: If NASR was a big deal in Indian calculations as you claim, why have you not used the situation to settle Kashmir equation yet?

There isn't any such thing as a Kashmir War. It will be an India Pakistan war. And the right to non-conventional defence will be with the defender not the attacker.

Oh btw, I saw you shied away from commenting on the thread where I tagged you on photographs of Pakistani victories? What happened'?

Won't let you open another front to engage me elsewhere.

The Pakistanis on PDF, even those who are trying here to drive in a point of the horrors of Nuclear War, forget that their championing Nasr as a solution is reinforcing the misconception, thereby increasing the likelihood of the stupidity gaining traction in national psyche. My post was to undermine this fallacy, thereby reinforcing the fact that it is not an option.

regards

Rational irrationality making you sweat? Use a handkerchief. Our narrative is not based on outright lies. Our nuclear doctrine, including use of Nasr, is critically evaluated by international experts. If Nasr was such a major bluff, we would be hearing about it. As things stand, Uncle Sam keeps publicly fretting about our increasing accretion of tactical weapons. You have intelligence that Uncle Sam doesn't?

The only thing with Nasr is that the warheads are not mated in peace time. But read the latest article on hilal about Pakistan's response to S-400. We have opened the option of human delivery of nuclear love. Yes, the threshold is getting lower, and the responsibility lies with India's disbalancing moves.

 

[thinkingcap81]

Nobody is dismissing it. Be the moniker you have and think about what is being said.

My 'original' post was to exhibit the fallacy of the persistent belief here of NASR being a super weapon to stop Armoured Divisions.

Somehow, it has become a major trend in PDF to bring everything to the level of NASR and use of Nuclear Weapons at a Tactical level. This has led to a serious embedding of the view that the advent of TNWs on subcontinental field, is an assurance of security. Whereas, it merely brings down the threshold. I shall elaborate on it a bit more subsequently.

The datum was posted to exhibit the requirement of number of weapons to effectively neutralize an armoured division in a theoretical manner without getting in to specifics. One merely needs to correlate the numbers required as calculated, to the industrial capacity of the nation to reprocess and enrich and also the availability of nuclear material in first place. The latter is severely limited. So, the number of nuclear devices that a nation can make quickly is limited. Of course, I do give the members the right to self delude and assume that it is available on demand and wish.

There were two very 'interesting' points made by the Pakistani CriticalThought member as under -

a. The Pakistan army has more resources than you see in the annual budget of the State of Pakistan. Where do you think we got 100+ Thunders from? Our defence is seen as being of a strategic nature by China.

b. Typical Indian delusions regarding an enemy that has been amassing nuclear material for over a decade.

When a member makes such statements, one can understand just how seriously they are to be taken.

You can appreciate the laughs I get when member asserts Pakistan Army has greater budget than whole of Pakistan. No wonder they are forever on verge of default. And they have been amassing since over a decade. Wonder what India has been doing since 1964?

Not sure why you have decided to jump on me. I do not think that i have opposed your arguments.

You have said that tactical nukes are not what they are being claimed to be. Some members dismissed tactical nukes totally. Combining the two points and accepting your point i just said they cannot be dismissed. Perhaps i could have added the word entirely to my sentence, but i meant the same.

As i said before, i base my arguments based on what some knowledgeable people say. For example, i sought some clarifications about the subcontinent's SFs vs NATO conventional military from @Irfan Baloch whom i consider to be quite balanced. He replied while also agreeing with some of my points. I do not make assertions that directly challenge worthy military professionals.

What, in your opinion, is a Nuclear Umbrella? And what do you take away from the bold, what do you understand of the statement?

That is your assumption.

I have been at odds with members of my fraternity for sometime over whether Pakistan is rationally irrational (hence their threat of nuclear weapons every other day and across the media) or whether they are genuinely irrational. The majority (and my view) is of view of former, that they are deliberately being irrational. And their achievement of drawing funds from US in garb of support to WoT over the past decade and a half, while strengthening their Nuclear Command and Control from same funds meant for same purpose (by playing on fears of Jihadis gaining control) exhibits the skillful and effective employment of this tactic to achieve their aims.

What I know of Pakistani Armed Forces, does not correlate with irrationality. Having said that, the TNWs are improbable, meant for domestic consumption and hardly to be taken seriously militarily. But they are very effective diplomatic tools, as nations around the world genuinely take them crazy enough to do something as stupid as use them.

Well i just saw the meaning of nuclear umbrella. I assumed that it meant that soldiers will need to think of adequate protection during war to minimise nuclear fallout. Me being a non-military person i hope you will excuse me about my misconception.

'we will call their nuclear bluff' - to me it means that IA will attack with the assumption that Pak nuke threshold is higher than claimed. This includes my thought that tactical nukes will be partially effective, and not totally useless (since you have also said that a nuke blast can be caused with minimal fallout and yet harm troops).

Had they been willing to use the TNWs, you would have seen an unprecedented spike in violence in Kashmir. What does that tell you? Present level of violence is hardly a fraction of the peaks of 90s.

Very good point. What you said essentially also implies that Pak establishment is not happy about peace and talks of peace since war will be a severe disadvantage for them. I believe this to be the case.

Well, actually i also think that even we are not looking for peace. Whether it is because we think that Pak establishment is incorrigible or whether we are becoming more nationalistic and hence belligerent is open to interpretation from both sides.

Let me put another point for you.

The smallest device we have, is for a 155 mm Caliber Artillery Gun.

Suppose we declare a First Use policy as they have. What will you, as a commander, assume when India fires the first artillery gun?

If you look at the statements emanating from Pakistan, from MIRVs to Cruise Missiles to NASR, everything is nuclear this or that. By doing so, they are already negating their own defences because while Indian policy calls for No First Strike, the mere fact that there is a line in India's Nuclear Doctrine which states that 'the use or threat of use of Nuclear, Biological, Chemical & Radiological Weapons' is enough to indicate the possibility of India mistaking a conventional rocket/missile attack as a nuclear attack. Such a move clearly shows the reckless behaviour of the opposite side.

India has clearly delineated it's weapon's systems for these very reasons. eg BrahMos has been kept exclusively for conventional strikes.



Further, there are plenty of Arm Chair Generals on this thread, and posting to every idiotic claim/assertion is a painful task.

Refer to Effects of Nuclear Weapons by Samuel Glasstone & Philip J Dolan. It remains a good work on the Nuclear Weapons and understanding the whole concept.

Also, militarily, as a commander, I would like to use my nuclear weapon in a counterforce strike, to achieve a 'breakthrough'. There is always a height where the radioactive fallout is minimal. The data for nominal bomb (called as a 20 Kt bomb because of use in Japan and data for the same is available) is available. Please be advised to go through that.

With an air burst at the ideal height, the primary casualties will be from shock and thermal effects of a nuclear weapons. With a negligible fallout (fallout is made up of debris and dust sucked up in near surface/surface blast which settles back on ground and gives rise to NIGA in long run in soil in near vicinity where the sand/debris is redeposited on land), as a Commander, I shall be able to take my troops in their MOPP and exploit the breach.

Just some pointers. Do the research.

Regards.

Thanks for the fallout concept and other issues.

 

[Hellfire]

Not sure why you have decided to jump on me. I do not think that i have opposed your arguments.

Yikes. Not jumping on you. Urging you to think for yourself.

This topic has been addressed earlier, hence is a tiring one.

I refuse to get dragged down to the level of instructions with others. Just come here to kill time from other proclivities with far more returns than here. Addressed you specifically, but general crowd too. There are still members here who will take a pause and think, instead of getting carried away in jingoism.

From day 1 of my stay here, I have openly claimed a need for India to have an unified Pakistan with a strong PA. That view remains unchanged. The alternative is more chaotic and less to our interests. Do think on that too.

I suggest, you read up in your leisure time and tag me for queries on Cold Start Doctrine thread. We can take the discussion there, but after Jan. May I request you to read up?

Also you shall have to excuse me for my contradictory approaches at times. I can tell you why a nuclear war can be fought in purely military terms. But it is equally ludicrous to believe that there are winners - you get only comparative losers. And with the oft posted bullshit in media and PDF about Nasr and the viability of TNWs as a deterrence, there is an increasing majority within Indian Armed Forces, which has started giving options to deal with it, and which is increasingly changing the Indian Political Mindset from being 'measured and diplomacy oriented' (which Pakistanis mistake for cowardice) to one of 'militaristic' viewpoint. There is a traction now.

Look at the post of the member from Pakistan:

We have opened the option of human delivery of nuclear love.


If that is not an act which is playing exactly into the terrorist philosophy, I do not know what is.
These statements are not brushed aside easily.

There is a good thread running here, on their nuclear complex. I seriously wish I could comment on it

@Arsalan

See you later.

 

[Arsalan]

Yikes. Not jumping on you. Urging you to think for yourself.

This topic has been addressed earlier, hence is a tiring one.

I refuse to get dragged down to the level of instructions with others. Just come here to kill time from other proclivities with far more returns than here. Addressed you specifically, but general crowd too. There are still members here who will take a pause and think, instead of getting carried away in jingoism.

From day 1 of my stay here, I have openly claimed a need for India to have an unified Pakistan with a strong PA. That view remains unchanged. The alternative is more chaotic and less to our interests. Do think on that too.

I suggest, you read up in your leisure time and tag me for queries on Cold Start Doctrine thread. We can take the discussion there, but after Jan. May I request you to read up?

Also you shall have to excuse me for my contradictory approaches at times. I can tell you why a nuclear war can be fought in purely military terms. But it is equally ludicrous to believe that there are winners - you get only comparative losers. And with the oft posted bullshit in media and PDF about Nasr and the viability of TNWs as a deterrence, there is an increasing majority within Indian Armed Forces, which has started giving options to deal with it, and which is increasingly changing the Indian Political Mindset from being 'measured and diplomacy oriented' (which Pakistanis mistake for cowardice) to one of 'militaristic' viewpoint. There is a traction now.

Look at the post of the member from Pakistan:

We have opened the option of human delivery of nuclear love.


If that is not an act which is playing exactly into the terrorist philosophy, I do not know what is.
These statements are not brushed aside easily.

There is a good thread running here, on their nuclear complex. I seriously wish I could comment on it

@Arsalan

See you later.

Only if we were judging national policies with the help of posts of members on at online forum!!

Agree with everything else though

@Hephaestus

I do agree, one must leave this forum. Ignorants hold titles. Not much to learn here. My only reason for coming here is that I hope to drive in some sense to idiots that are sprouting here.

@Arsalan

Nah Bro. This place sucks big time.

The place is what you and I make it Without you, it is just some articles scattered around.
Again, i will say that it must be among the best that everyone keeps coming back to it despite all those accusations of biased moderation, trolling, targeted harassment, bans and what not.

Anyway, i am just glad that we manage to attract the posters back.

 

[Dash]

My Dear Sir.

There is a defense mechanism - transference. I would urge you to be emphatic and understand the personal trauma in the member's life. The member is exemplifying the typical signs, perhaps subconsciously narrating personal experiences?

What the contention of the (un)learned member of concentration of armour fails to account for, is the frontage of a typical infantry unit in example Rajasthan-Sindh sector. Where as a platoon of infantry typically will occupy a frontage of about 150 to 200 meters, with a classic 2 up 1 down platoon dispersion formation as an example, a company will occupy a frontage of almost 500 to 600 odd meters with a depth of somewhat similar approximation. The more pertinent part is, deployments will be at section/squad level or platoon level or maybe various combinations, as dunes will be occupied for the reason of being higher ground.

Of course, with the expectation of a preceding artillery barrage with close support right till advance elements reach the range for own weapons to engage, dispersion of even the defending forces is but a given. To add to it, the allocation of Light Anti Tank Weapons (at best able to disable a tank by blowing off a track) remains a norm, but the Heavy ATGMs, are few and dispersed for ATGM crew survivability. For precisely that reason, a tank in say 50 meter inter-se gap, is a laugh, as the probability of both being 'killed' increases. ATGM mobility is still an issue, it is not very easy to maneuver on feet and vehicle borne are way too easy to spot (especially in the area we are talking of if the vehicle does not get stuck in sand first )

Of course, these basics would be known to the member, had he spent even a day in foxhole instead of sitting on a computer console and becoming the armchair general, classically following the adage 'blind led by blind' by quoting our very own photoshop master for some or the other point. Had that been the case, he would not insist on making a complete mess of himself. But seeing as I do, his propensity to hurl expletives, lose control of his emotions and general disbalanced approach with a marked anti-social (read un-civil) demeanour, the only explanation that comes to fore is that he is highly traumatized and is merely in transference.

I would urge you to ignore. You will do a better job convincing the wall to move

Agreed !! But @randomradio pulled out a genius from somewhere he only know. Pivot corps in 2 and strike corps in 5. I just read that and I cant stop laughing.

You cannot use Chernobyl as an example of nuclear war, or soldiers participating in nuclear war:

1. Chernobyl was an uncontrolled explosion that caused nuclear material to spread. A nuclear warhead would concentrate the nuclear fallout by polluting the ground, water, and other material to which advancing soldiers would be exposed.

2. Residents around Chernobyl were evacuated quickly and effectively. Advancing soldiers would expose themselves and since this is war, they may have to hold position in the affected area for a long time.

3. Data gathering in Chernobyl was controlled by the Soviets hence we cannot draw an independent and meaningful conclusion.

That logic is as effective as NASR.

 

[CriticalThought]

Agreed !! But @randomradio pulled out a genius from somewhere he only know. Pivot corps in 2 and strike corps in 5. I just read that and I cant stop laughing.



That logic is as effective as NASR.

My advice to you, stop independent forays into the realm of logic. You get lost pretty quickly. Unable to counter my points, you and your cohorts can only make feeble statements of denial. Denying facts takes you nowhere.

 

[Dash]

My advice to you, stop independent forays into the realm of logic. You get lost pretty quickly. Unable to counter my points, you and your cohorts can only make feeble statements of denial. Denying facts takes you nowhere.

I dont want to be brutal but denial of facts are only reserved for Pakistanis.
Stop being emotional and ask me some real question.

 

[CriticalThought]

I dont want to be brutal but denial of facts are only reserved for Pakistanis.
Stop being emotional and ask me some real question.

You are a nobody that I should ask questions from. You have been tarnishing the forum with low quality, illogical posts, and when comprehensively refuted, you are now wasting time. C'mon, get lost.

 

[Dash]

You are a nobody that I should ask questions from. You have been tarnishing the forum with low quality, illogical posts, and when comprehensively refuted, you are now wasting time. C'mon, get lost.

Then stop responding to me useless.

 

[CriticalThought]

Then stop responding to me useless.

Indian trolls are my playthings. I do as I please with them.

 

[Dash]

Indian trolls are my playthings. I do as I please with them.

See what you have been reduced to

 

[CriticalThought]

See what you have been reduced to

Usual Indian shamelessness on display.