Ambala to station first squadron of MMRCA fighters

[SamantK]

You are a tin horn and you amply display your ability and expose your petty knowledge base every time you open your mouth.

Let's examine Pakistan's nuclear thresholds and then you can comment further:

A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre-emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles.

An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure.

In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map.

Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place.

Coming from you, we should take it with a bag of salt..

 

[Ticker]

But wasting nukes to chase low-value targets is a no-brainer and a waste of money and resources.

I said, that it is the target which needs neutralization for which relevant yield may matter.

 

[SamantK]

You are a tin horn and you amply display your ability and expose your petty knowledge base every time you open your mouth.

Let's examine Pakistan's nuclear thresholds and then you can comment further:

A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre-emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles.

An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure.

In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map.

Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place.

You shamelessly plagiarize, without giving the source and passing as your examination. Do you have any opinion of your own or not?

Exploring Pakistan's Nuclear Thresholds - Analysis Eurasia Review

 

[newdelhinsa]

You are a tin horn and you amply display your ability and expose your petty knowledge base every time you open your mouth.

Let's examine Pakistan's nuclear thresholds and then you can comment further:

A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre-emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles.

An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure.

In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map.

Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place.

Placing one squadron at Ambala can make you guys out with nuclear war or battle options and thresholds means we have already won the war.

 

[Armstrong]

Yes buddy. Pakistan's tactical nukes development for stopping Indian blitz attack will be considered as nuclear attack on India so No First Use Policy won't be valid anymore. That's why Tactical nukes don't have that much significance and are more dangerous as it main start chain reaction to multiple times high yield Nuke attack.

Only thing that is useful is that if used once and resulting of stopping of aggression, countries initiates third party dialogue/ ceasefire etc. but the window will be very small.

I disagree ! I think that tactical nukes provide the ultimate deterrent that one can have for to be in possession of a mobile platform that can fire from a 100kms away from anywhere in the country & manage to obliterate perhaps everything in a 1 mile radius, is very significant !

The fact that it does or doesn't violate the No First Use Policy is moot for technically so would the usage of a DU round but let us be fair - that policy has significance only in a 'strategic context'. I take out Mumbai...Lahore is free game ! Thats what it realistically implies, me thinks.

And this is exactly where the deterrent part steps in because I know for a fact that India will not use a strategic nuke on Pakistan just as Pakistan would never use one on India ! However taking out an Indian Armoured Formation is very different to taking out Calcutta or even a small town somwhere ! Would the Commander of a Strike Corp in say Jhansi be willing to risk anihilating whole swathes of his troops knowing that Pakistan may push the button ? Would the Generals sitting in GHQ be willing to do that ? Would an Admiral out at sea be willing to position his flotilla thus that it comes within range of a nuclear tipped Babur or Ra'ad armed with a minutarized nuke ! Would the Pakistanis really pull the trigger...or are they bluffing ? This distinction though easily made when cities are involved is excrutiatingly hard to make at a tactical level where the damage inflicted is exponentially less, the fallout very little & yet the efficacy tremendous ! Would you risk it ? Would I risk it ? What happens if I push the button ? Would you reply in kind ? What happens if I pre-emptively nuke multiple formations ? What then ? Do you retalliate with your own ? Can I risk that much damage ? Can you risk the uncertainty of not knowing whether I'd be willing to use it on an Indian Formation ? These & many more are the questions that, I think, would revolve in the heads of Military Planners & Executors on either side ! And I don't think that either side would be able to reduce the risk of tactical nukes not being used & disproportionate number of casualties not being caused to anything close to an acceptable limit ! Your side of the argument is that the world will never forgive us but you don't realize that in an Indo-Pak war in the current context those 'after-thoughts' will not be considered when Indian Formations descend upon Lahore or Sialkot or any other city of hours ! This truly is our trump card...do you call our bluff, if it is a bluff, & risk it or do you realize the gravity of where this could lead us & any conflict not being greater than a border skirmish or a stand-off ! I truly think that its the latter...!

 

[surya kiran]

Does that extend to tactical nukes ?

The Indian position is quite clear on this front. Usage of nuclear weapons in Indian land or Indian troops will result in "massive retaliation and unacceptable damage" due to retaliation with Indian atomic weapons. Indian doctrine on this is quite clear. No first use. But, if used it will not be one nuclear bomb. Also, understand usage of a nuclear weapon against Indian forces, according to the Sundarji Doctrine, will ensure immediate change in Indian military objective from limited war to dismemberment of Pakistan. You can read up on the same.

The Ambala airbase houses the Mig21 BIS squadron. Which is what will be replaced. I dont see the Jag squadron being moved from there. So its old aircraft being replaced with newer ones. But what is good, is that, a point defence fighter will be replaced with a multi role fighter. Also, I think and this is an opinion, that with this it clearly shows the intention of the IAF to initiate contact instead of waiting first.

I disagree ! I think that tactical nukes provide the ultimate deterrent that one can have for to be in possession of a mobile platform that can fire from a 100kms away from anywhere in the country & manage to obliterate perhaps everything in a 1 mile radius, is very significant !

The fact that it does or doesn't violate the No First Use Policy is moot for technically so would the usage of a DU round but let us be fair - that policy has significance only in a 'strategic context'. I take out Mumbai...Lahore is free game ! Thats what it realistically implies, me thinks.

And this is exactly where the deterrent part steps in because I know for a fact that India will not use a strategic nuke on Pakistan just as Pakistan would never use one on India ! However taking out an Indian Armoured Formation is very different to taking out Calcutta or even a small town somwhere ! Would the Commander of a Strike Corp in say Jhansi be willing to risk anihilating whole swathes of his troops knowing that Pakistan may push the button ? Would the Generals sitting in GHQ be willing to do that ? Would an Admiral out at sea be willing to position his flotilla thus that it comes within range of a nuclear tipped Babur or Ra'ad armed with a minutarized nuke ! Would the Pakistanis really pull the trigger...or are they bluffing ? This distinction though easily made when cities are involved is excrutiatingly hard to make at a tactical level where the damage inflicted is exponentially less, the fallout very little & yet the efficacy tremendous ! Would you risk it ? Would I risk it ? What happens if I push the button ? Would you reply in kind ? What happens if I pre-emptively nuke multiple formations ? What then ? Do you retalliate with your own ? Can I risk that much damage ? Can you risk the uncertainty of not knowing whether I'd be willing to use it on an Indian Formation ? These & many more are the questions that, I think, would revolve in the heads of Military Planners & Executors on either side ! And I don't think that either side would be able to reduce the risk of tactical nukes not being used & disproportionate number of casualties not being caused to anything close to an acceptable limit ! Your side of the argument is that the world will never forgive us but you don't realize that in an Indo-Pak war in the current context those 'after-thoughts' will not be considered when Indian Formations descend upon Lahore or Sialkot or any other city of hours ! This truly is our trump card...do you call our bluff, if it is a bluff, & risk it or do you realize the gravity of where this could lead us & any conflict not being greater than a border skirmish or a stand-off ! I truly think that its the latter...!

Nope. You are wrong there. Usage of any nuclear weapon, tactical or strategic will result in "massive retaliation and unacceptible damage". That's the point of the whole no first use policy. Indian nuclear doctrine does not distinguish betweeen tactical and strategic. So if you are going to use a tactical nuke, you better be ready to through it your all, becasue, Indian retaliation will not distinguish anything.

 

[Ticker]

You shamelessly plagiarize, without giving the source and passing as your examination. Do you have any opinion of your own or not?

Exploring Pakistan's Nuclear Thresholds - Analysis Eurasia Review

Am I writing analysis papers here to quote references for pseudo-intellectuals like you.

 

[Armstrong]

Nope. You are wrong there. Usage of any nuclear weapon, tactical or strategic will result in "massive retaliation and unacceptible damage". That's the point of the whole no first use policy. Indian nuclear doctrine does not distinguish betweeen tactical and strategic.

Thats exactly where rhetoric gets separated from realism ! Do you risk 'massive retaliation & unacceptable damage' in turn or do you let it be localized to the tactical theatre ?

Like I implied its all risk-assessment & in this case neither of us can risk a war ! Thats what makes it a trump card. You can't call our bluff if it is indeed a bluff & we can't call your bluff if it is indeed a bluff - that uncertainty is what keeps the war from happening in the first place.

 

[Ticker]

First mind your language and be civil. You didn't understand my point and you started your rants and started same old copy paste job.

All these options are the procedures and tactics. what I explained was what happens after your nuke attack and war ceases and dust settles down.

I can also put India's policy too but I don't derail thread with off topic rants and insults.

Well nothing can be expected from you when civility is considered.

I am civil enough for you. It is people like you who should learn to be civil.

 

[newdelhinsa]

I disagree ! I think that tactical nukes provide the ultimate deterrent that one can have for to be in possession of a mobile platform that can fire from a 100kms away from anywhere in the country & manage to obliterate perhaps everything in a 1 mile radius, is very significant !

The fact that it does or doesn't violate the No First Use Policy is moot for technically so would the usage of a DU round but let us be fair - that policy has significance only in a 'strategic context'. I take out Mumbai...Lahore is free game ! Thats what it realistically implies, me thinks.

And this is exactly where the deterrent part steps in because I know for a fact that India will not use a strategic nuke on Pakistan just as Pakistan would never use one on India ! However taking out an Indian Armoured Formation is very different to taking out Calcutta or even a small town somwhere ! Would the Commander of a Strike Corp in say Jhansi be willing to risk anihilating whole swathes of his troops knowing that Pakistan may push the button ? Would the Generals sitting in GHQ be willing to do that ? Would an Admiral out at sea be willing to position his flotilla thus that it comes within range of a nuclear tipped Babur or Ra'ad armed with a minutarized nuke ! Would the Pakistanis really pull the trigger...or are they bluffing ? This distinction though easily made when cities are involved is excrutiatingly hard to make at a tactical level where the damage inflicted is exponentially less, the fallout very little & yet the efficacy tremendous ! Would you risk it ? Would I risk it ? What happens if I push the button ? Would you reply in kind ? What happens if I pre-emptively nuke multiple formations ? What then ? Do you retalliate with your own ? Can I risk that much damage ? Can you risk the uncertainty of not knowing whether I'd be willing to use it on an Indian Formation ? These & many more are the questions that, I think, would revolve in the heads of Military Planners & Executors on either side ! And I don't think that either side would be able to reduce the risk of tactical nukes not being used & disproportionate number of casualties not being caused to anything close to an acceptable limit ! Your side of the argument is that the world will never forgive us but you don't realize that in an Indo-Pak war in the current context those 'after-thoughts' will not be considered when Indian Formations descend upon Lahore or Sialkot or any other city of hours ! This truly is our trump card...do you call our bluff, if it is a bluff, & risk it or do you realize the gravity of where this could lead us & any conflict not being greater than a border skirmish or a stand-off ! I truly think that its the latter...!

World is done away with tactical nukes, NATO and Warsaw did ages ago, same attrition/damage can be with achieved with conventional munition.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I said, that it is the target which needs neutralization for which relevant yield may matter.

But you can't just go around launching nuclear strikes (tactical or otherwise) on any target you may wish to take out. This would almost certinly lead to. Full blown nuclear war which would see Pakistan effectively wiped from the face of the earth. Nuclear weapons are inherently strategic weapons even if they are small yielding they wil illicit the same response from India so this line of attack is a dead end. Sometimes you should just have the humility to admit India is better than you in certain areas.

 

[SamantK]

Am I writing analysis papers here to quote references for pseudo-intellectuals like you.

No but if you are copy pasting someone's work, it is general ethics to give the author the credit..

I see you are not introduced to Internet ethics and fair play..

And you seems to the fit definition of a pseudo-intellectual, plagiarizing not just here but on other threads too..

 

[surya kiran]

Thats exactly where rhetoric gets separated from realism ! Do you risk 'massive retaliation & unacceptable damage' in turn or do you let it be localized to the tactical theatre ?

Like I implied its all risk-assessment & in this case neither of us can risk a war ! Thats what makes it a trump card. You can't call our bluff if it is indeed a bluff & we can't call your bluff if it is indeed a bluff - that uncertainty is what keeps the war from happening in the first place.

My dear friend. I am only stating the doctrine. I am not the National Security Advisor. Hence, with the limited knowledge that I have, I have laid down the stated policy. Now whether the policy is translated not translated is not something I am privy to, correct?

And I do not know if Pakistan can risk a war, but, we definitely do not want one. We have better things to bother about than going around fighting you guys. And my belief is that you guys have nothing to fear from aggression perspective from you eastern front. We would any day prefer showing we have a bigger economy that showing we have a bigger military.

 

[Gessler]

It means we can blow it up with cruise missiles without getting a single fighter airborne

Warfighting is so easy for keyboard warriors.

without Ambala finding out what really hit it.

How do you plan to do that? Don't give your terrain-hugging song and dance because terraining alone cannot save you from detection. Especially not if the enemy is neatly equipped with airborne early warning systems, Aerostats and then long-range radars like Swordfish that are already scanning every inch of pakistan, so you shouldn't think that GLCMs like Baboon can get away undetected. Cuz we would we tracking them the from the moment they are launched.

ALCM like Ra'ad is a far cry because 1) to launch it you need to put ac in the sky, and these ac shall most probably be shot down by IAF ac even before they get to launch the missiles and 2) they spend quality time high up in the air,, coupled with their slow speed, it only makes them far easier targets to knock down, 3) even if IAF ac couldn't shoot down the PAF ac carrying the missile before launching it, they have lots of time to take out the slow missile with AAMs. It has been proven that even Tomahawks can be shot down by
AAMs launched from jets.

Modern warfare has moved on..

Modern defences have also moved on,,,you wouldn't know the half of it.

In 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqis could shoot down multiple Tomahawk T-LAMs with obsolete missiles like Roland SHORADS (from 1960s) and with only little radar network available to correctly track the missile.

Today, India has the latest SPYDER SAMs. These can pull upto 76 Gs to take out incoming targets. Even our own Akash missile with its Rajendra PESA radar can take out cruise missiles with a fair kill probability, albeit lower than SPYDER, but thats more like it.

Don't expect F-16s to come and bomb ambala, they can do so by launching Ra'ads 350kms away.

F-16s will be shot down right over Pakistani airspace, if you want me to get to your level of thinking. And I also think IAF has fairly demostrated that we can shoot down your ac over your own airspace time and again.

 

[gslv mk3]

I am civil enough for you. It is people like you who should learn to be civil.

After losing ground in a debate this is always your last stand

where are the "go back to your slum" comments as usual....

Ahh.....Look at the pattern......how the HAS stand out exposed.

India would be watching movements in PAF airbases using spy satellites