What's new

A Race Pakistan Cannot Possibly Win

@Anik101

Please. Everything is answered by NASR & MIRVs. Now do not ask how will they have enough warheads to place in both NASR and MIRVS to make an impact on the Pivot Corps which will be entering 48 hours prior to Strike Corps, let alone the Strike Corps and the Armoured Divisions.

To quote Col Narendar Singh, Ph.D.* from his work "Nuclear Option - Calling the Pakistani Bluff"



Imagery analysis of the Nasr missile suggests that its diameter is 30 centimetres (about 12 inches) across and could therefore be able to carry a very compact nuclear warhead comparable to the U.S. W-33 nuclear artillery shell that has a yield varying from less than 1 kiloton to about 10 kilotons. 43 Simulations of a 10-kiloton explosion produced a peak static overpressure of 33.35 psi at 370 meters (about 405 yards). This overpressure only displaced a tank by “about 2.5 meters with acceleration sufficient to inflict moderate damage to external fittings such as track guards, but the tank was able to be driven off and its gun fired after sand and debris had been removed from the barrel,” according to the 1994 study Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability. Incapacitating a tank requires an overpressure of about 45 psi. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] A 1-kiloton explosion at a height of about 150 meters (about 492 feet) results in “overpressures of 45 psi at horizontal distances from ground zero as large as about 170 meters . . . then a 15 kt burst at a height of about 400 m would generate an overpressure of 3 atm up [45 psi] to a distance of about 420 meters, i.e., over an area of 0.55 km.” One 15-kiloton weapon should destroy about 55 tanks, if the tanks are spaced at 100 meters (about 328 feet) apart. (See table 1 for another estimate of the effects on tanks separated by 100 meters.)

If tanks are spaced at 300 meters (or 984 feet) apart, the number of weapons necessary to achieve 55 so-called kills rises from one to eight. By this calculation, destroying a well-dispersed force of 500 tanks would likely require 100 X15-kiloton weapons. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] Although the depth of a tank formation would depend on the relative spacing between each tank, such as “50 meters apart in rows separated by 250 meters (the effective spacing would be 120 meters),” a tank force expecting a nuclear attack would be more dispersed, which would also reduce the immediate radiation effects on the tank crews. Another lower estimate posits that if “tanks were separated by even greater distances, it would require the use of over 80 nuclear weapons of 15 kt yield each to disable or kill the crews in a force of 1000 tanks.” [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] According to a 2001 estimate by Ashley J. Tellis, Pakistan would need “37 weapons of 15 kt (or 57 weapons of 8 kt) to operationally disable an Indian armored division.” [Ashley J. Tellis, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), 133–34.]

Table 1: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons Against Tanks Separated by 100 Meters
Yield (kilotons) Number of tanks destroyed by blast Number of tank crews disabled by radiation
15 64 360
10 48 290
5 32 190
1 10 110
110
Source: A. H. Nayyar and Zia Mian, “Pakistan and the Nasr Missile: Searching for a Method in the Madness,” Economic and Political Weekly 50, no. 39 (September 2015), http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/39/Pakistan_and_the_Nasr_Missile.pdf.



Cross posting has done in the alignments, so, excuse me for that.

I find it quite silly that some people here still think nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones will "guarantee" a miracle cheap way of sustainably deterring massive and growing opponent's strength. There are limits for every philosophy (when you do the cold hard technical reality check), esp when you do not have any large strategic depth and all your weapons are within increasingly easier watch and reach for the adversary's sensors and conventional platforms.

At some point you simply have to bulk your own investment to counter that (and only surefire way is to grow your own economy, rather than parceling out more and more of existing small pie to your military and its foreign benefactors)...."miracle weapon" (even running with the miracle assumption) ROI concept (esp at same undefined rate as before) never holds eternally or even long term....even among more equally matched conventional foes (as we saw with the US and USSR in the 80s).

I mean how many times has the carrier killer missile thing been brought up with the same feelz on that? @jhungary @AUSTERLITZ @MilSpec @Vergennes
 
Add Sarfaraz, Shadab, Hasan and wahab, you might have a chance at the next Asia cup. what say @Oscar

You can joke all you want, but that's the truth. Nuclear weapons have got us locked in a Mexican stand-off. India (or Pakistan) can become as jacked as it wants, the nuclear bullet will still rip through all that muscle like a hot knife through butter. And it will be fired if we (or you) get pushed into a corner.
 
I find it quite silly that some people here still think nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones will "guarantee" a miracle cheap way of sustainably deterring massive and growing opponent's strength. There are limits for every philosophy (when you do the cold hard technical reality check), esp when you do not have any large strategic depth and all your weapons are within increasingly easier watch and reach for the adversary's sensors and conventional platforms.

At some point you simply have to bulk your own investment to counter that (and only surefire way is to grow your own economy, rather than parceling out more and more of existing small pie to your military and its foreign benefactors)...."miracle weapon" (even running with the miracle assumption) ROI concept (esp at same undefined rate as before) never holds eternally or even long term....even among more equally matched conventional foes (as we saw with the US and USSR in the 80s).

I mean how many times has the carrier killer missile thing been brought up with the same feelz on that? @jhungary @AUSTERLITZ @MilSpec @Vergennes

Just because the default go to defence of PDF youngsters is tactical nukes, doesn't mean Pakistan doesn't have credible conventional military deterrence.

We have a million armed men, battle trained, equipped with night fighting capability, integrated with ucavs, uavs, anti tank weaponry and thousands of apcs.

They're backed by 1400 tanks, over 1000 pieces of artillery, MLRS systems, battlefield ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and 50+ attack helicopters with another 30-40 on order.

Not to mention the airforce.

You Indians make out like we're Somalia with nuclear weapons.

Yes on conventional grounds alone at some point we'd lose a war, but we have enough to not be over run, and a plan B for if we were.
 
Just because the default go to defence of PDF youngsters is tactical nukes, doesn't mean Pakistan doesn't have credible conventional military deterrence.

We have a million armed men, battle trained, equipped with night fighting capability, integrated with ucavs, uavs, anti tank weaponry and thousands of apcs.

They're backed by 1400 tanks, over 1000 pieces of artillery, MLRS systems, battlefield ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and 50+ attack helicopters with another 30-40 on order.

Not to mention the airforce.

You Indians make out like we're Somalia with nuclear weapons.

Yes on conventional grounds alone at some point we'd lose a war, but we have enough to not be over run, and a plan B for if we were.

Never said it would be any kind of walkover/pushover or close (if you look at say 1965 war battles in all the relevant corridors)...the costs for both will be very high even purely conventionally.

I don't like any kind of under-estimating/over-estimating (and particularly extreme versions)....miracle be-all end all weapons doctrine (1 dollar spent on miracle something will always eternally counter 1000 dollars spent on another side etc) is one part of it...there are other ones that apply to both sides too....often helped along by the haze provided by animosity and even open revulsion (i.e its often hard to stay emotionally cool and more neutral to logic application)

BTW, I would also never say "you" Pakistanis as though you are an entire monolithic group that think exactly the same (hence why I said "some people")...this forum has certainly been helpful for me in that regard....but even before I was cognizant of the differing opinions that just comes with the sheer size and diversity of any 100+ million population.

Of course there are many emotional Indian members here too that indulge in same (from the side of over-confidence, ego, inherent superiority etc), I generally dont interact all that much with them in such topics. Its boring for me.
 
Indians have no answer to nasr !! one is enough to send them back to ice age !!

NASR is a land based system, Particularly designed to stop large Formations of Tanks and Mechanized infantry , it serve its purpose .

Pakistan have cost effective counter measure to every Indian systems.

That is true, we do have them or working on them . but Point to note here is that as our economy is in poor state we have to make the best out of resources we have, but Pakistan still don't compromise of stuff which gives our enemy a clear edge on us ..

This Submarine of yours does not change anything for Pakistan , as IN is already operating Nuclear Sub, as for countering it we will have 6 newly built AIP Submarines able to launch Nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles with at least 450 KM .. which is very decent range if we consider India and Pakistan Geographic locations .

Even the statue?

The Statue is more a threat to Indians than Pakistani's so i think its safe from us :)
 
Well, in 2018 and Gen 4 Warfare, if any nation was bankrupt, its quite synonymous to be practically "doomed".

Im not really sure what is more dangerous in Pakistan,s context - A Bad Situation or the Perception of A Good Situation.

I wish Pakistan could think like South Korea. Real power lies in a robust Economy.

As an Indian, We love to compare and hve set China as a Role Model. We dont wish to beat china in war but matach lr get closer to their Economic Achievements...Thats why in India people no longer talk about nukes and missiles rather Mangalyaan... and how can we match SpaceX .

10 years have passed and Im yet to see pakistani guys coming up and feeling pride over anything beyond Nukes or keeping India at bay.
Icc 2017...a game u won before started.
All the experts in your favour. We had no chance.
Then the whooping started. Yes thats one example of our pride...so please go buy a toilet with all the wealth u have
 
Let's see how long incompetent Indian Navy keeps it afloat ...

The completion of the first deterrence patrol by INS Arihant, India’s first home-developed, nuclear-powered submarine, completing the nuclear deterrence triad, procurement of the S400 missile systems from Russia and the induction of new heavy-calibre guns for the artillery are changing the balance of power in the subcontinent. There was immense criticism by Pakistan in every forum, including international gatherings, when India signed the S 400 missile deal.

They projected the shifting of balance of power in India’s favour leading to increased security concerns. Pakistan sought to suggest that the entire subcontinent was being impacted by security concerns. This was ignored by South Asian nations and the world community as they realised that apart from Pakistan, India has no adversary in South Asia.

Similar criticism flowed when INS Arihant was inducted into the service. The Pakistan foreign ministry spokesperson stated, “This development marks the first actual deployment of ready-to-fire nuclear warheads in South Asia. This is a matter of concern not only for the Indian Ocean littoral states but also for the international community at large.” In each case it projected its desire for peace as also its preparedness for war.

Pakistan has yet to comment on the induction of new artillery guns, which could change the equation in conventional operations as also crossborder violations. It permits the Indian army to strike deep into Pak territory hitting administrative bases and terrorist camps, which earlier could only be targeted by cross-border strikes as employing rockets or air power could add to escalation. The comment is likely to flow in the coming days, when these guns begin being deployed.

While Indian military power is aimed at deterrence from China, it is Pakistan which is panicking. The Pakistani armed forces are aware of India’s growing military might for conventional warfare as also its growing nuclear deterrence capability. However, their financial constraints have compelled them to counter the same by claiming deployment of tactical nuclear missiles. Their international standing has dropped to the level that assistance from all allies, including the US, has dried up forcing them to look at only China for support.

China is a ready provider for multiple reasons. Firstly, it must keep the Pakistan army in good humour. It is aware that its investments in the CPEC are secure provided it has the backing of the Pakistan army. Simultaneously, it cannot announce its true expenditure in the CPEC to the world as the Pakistani army has skimmed a part of the funds, almost terming it as a bribe for ensuring its continuity. Any action by Pakistan to limit the expansion of the CPEC would impact the power of Xi Jinping, as this project is the key to the Belt Road Initiative (BRI), which covers large parts of the globe.

Secondly, enhancing the military power of Pakistan would impact Indian defence expenditure as also its concentration of forces. As a result of Chinese support, diplomatic and military, India has always been forced to consider a two-front war. It has also provided Pakistan the confidence to continue pushing militants into Kashmir, keeping it destabilised.

As India restructures and modernizes its armed forces, it pushes Pakistan into a corner. Pakistan cannot bank on its so-called tactical nuclear weapons, as international pressure and swift Indian strikes may preclude their employment even within their own territory. The only option which it has is to run to the Chinese for near similar capabilities. Since it lacks financial stability including the ability to repay earlier loans, it may not get blanket Chinese support.

Pakistan is now moving towards the IMF for a bailout package, despite assistance already provided by Saudi Arabia and likely to be provided by China. The delay in China providing financial assistance is that it is bound to seek its pound of flesh, mainly ensuring the security and continuity of CPEC, where it has invested heavily. The IMF is bound to impose its own terms, some of which would be crippling and disadvantageous for the army including cutting down its defence expenditure.

The IMF terms would not be for a short duration but lengthy enough to pinch Pakistan. By curtailing the defence budget, it would restrict the ability of Pakistan to make new purchases to meet Indian capability expansion, adding to the growing gap. It could bank on Chinese largesse but the same would not be enough as repayment ability would be low.

The Pakistani army, which cannot be seen to be considered weaker as India continues to enhance military power, would be compelled to divert funds from other sources to meet its needs, seeking to hide these investments. These funds would impact social security services in Pakistan adding to problems of its population. While the ISI has complete control over the country and there are no voices which can criticise the actions of the army, internal rumblings against the government would rise.

One of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was it being pushed into an arms race with the US. It had to continue enhancing its military capabilities to ensure NATO remained at bay. It was forced into doing so, despite a vast gap in the economic status of the two countries. Thus, the arms race was unsustainable and broke the economy of the Soviet Union.

The Pakistan army has suffered in every war with India, hence is always concerned about Indian military power. It can never accept the fact that it can never compete militarily with India. The gap between the economies of India and Pak is similarly wide. Pushing Pakistan into an arms race, by continuing to enhance Indian military power may have a similar result as the breakup of the Soviet Union.


https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/race-pakistan-cannot-win-1502709548.html
 
Just because the default go to defence of PDF youngsters is tactical nukes, doesn't mean Pakistan doesn't have credible conventional military deterrence.

We have a million armed men, battle trained, equipped with night fighting capability, integrated with ucavs, uavs, anti tank weaponry and thousands of apcs.

They're backed by 1400 tanks, over 1000 pieces of artillery, MLRS systems, battlefield ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and 50+ attack helicopters with another 30-40 on order.

Not to mention the airforce.

You Indians make out like we're Somalia with nuclear weapons.

Yes on conventional grounds alone at some point we'd lose a war, but we have enough to not be over run, and a plan B for if we were.
If the Pak forces hold the ground it gets difficult for the IA to continue!!! Battles of Lahore, Sialkot, Hilli etc.!!!!
 
NASR is a land based system, Particularly designed to stop large Formations of Tanks and Mechanized infantry , it serve its purpose .

Exactly, how?

I am curious. It is a single warhead weapon. So, I did post a datum just a few posts earlier, are you proposing to put all your reported 220 (make 250) to stop the armoured division, independent armoured brigades and that too in your own territory, in near proximity to the towns/cities?

Or are you suggesting you will use them with a mix of conventional and non-conventional munitions? (rather cost ineffective for you then)

(Not to mention exactly how many warheads/delivery systems do you think, will actually be available to you for use?)
 
Last edited:
Exactly, how?

I am curious. It is a single warhead weapon. So, I did post a datum just a few posts earlier, are you proposing to put all your reported 220 (make 250) to stop the armoured division, independent armoured brigades and that too in your own territory, in near proximity to the towns/cities?

Or are you suggesting you will use them with a mix of conventional and non-conventional munitions? (rather cost ineffective for you then)

(Not to mention exactly how many warheads/delivery systems do you think, will actually be available to you for use?)
Wouldn't the SPGs and A-100s of Pakistan pose a lot of problems? Are about 100-150 K-9s enough for us?
 
Well something is always better than nothing. Hope you got my point. ;););)



On the contrary we have plans to increase the insecurity of the people across the border so that it really put pressure on their wallets. LOL :p:
Remeber if we all come to the border and piss you Tom will down drinking it
 
Indians come in hordes onto Pakistani websites, their politicians and journalists screech about Pakistan day and night, and they have to invent fake operations to make people think they can do anything

"b-b-but ve r winnars!!" :rofl::rofl:
We ain't running from country to country asking to be bailed out though.
 
It shows you who is really obsessed with who

yet all the news in Pakistan and mostly the attention of Pakistani discussion is the economy; isnt it odd that when Indians come here, they only bring with them cries of war yet hypocritically expect us to respond with talk of economy to them?

Naive ?

You know what ... The Owner of this forum can very easily block the Indian IP ranges and the Indians will simply vanish.

Thats it. Its That Simple. But they wont do that would they ? Its all about Adsense Money.
Thats why he even created an Indian version ( Yes.. an Indian Forum owned by the owner of defence.pk ) lol

Add to it, that dozens of false accounts are created/promoted to spit venom ( in effect "hypocritically" trying to attract a response ) but speaking otherwise.

My friend, You get what you ask for. Simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom