Army's 'Cold Start' doctrine gets teeth

[ziaulislam]

Yep! Like 95,000 surrendered in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Wow! That's a lot of eunuchs, what?

Cheers!

i dont like to correct peoples on vivid topics but it was less than 60 thousand troops(unless you count children, women and postal officers as troops) surrendering to over half a million troops and near million bangladeshi fighters with no air support/supplies....

 

[ziaulislam]

No offense friend, but the fact is if at all a nuke war is occured,
for a sqmt of pakistan 0.25 sqmts of Indian territory is lost.
Provided India uses aircrafts by exploding high yield devices(pakistans aircrafts will have more threat than indian ones and india has many aircrafts) , the damage will be more to pakistan.
But since the population density is high in India the no. of deaths may increase but the percentage will be less when compared to pakistan.
If 50 % of pakistan is bashed, 20% of India will be gone.
Same way 50% of India is gone means 35% of china will be gone.
(If US enters with a threat probability if china nukes India, Most of China would lose.).
No offense .

if there is a nuclear scaled war both india and pakistan have enough war heads to destroy every inch of each other (through nuclear fall out) over and over agin..i guess about 50 nuclear war heads will be enough to make nearly all india damaged so..guys dont compare damages in nuclear war..
once a city is targeted by either side in a nuclear war expect it to be a full nuclear war..

this may not be the case if military is targeted (bases etc however its my guess) and definitely not if you use it on your own soil..(its legitimate to use it on your terrority....)

so it also means that pakistan will never go for a nuclear war nor will india both arent children..but using a small tactical device on your own soil with limited damage is different story as it would not justify a full nuclear war in any case...

same was reason (both india and pakistan knowing that full nuclear war was out of question) that india proposed a cold start doctrine...and same is the reason why we are in a conventional war race..or it would have been very simple, why would we need such a large military/airforce and navy ..we could cut it by 2/3 without any big risk to internal security and simply relay on nukes..if nukes are placed on subs or movable plateforms as we have their no way that opposition can take them out (impossible by all means on AIP/nuclear submarine )


bottom line
its extremly childish to quote percentages of country being destroyed in nuclear war...it is ALL or none principle

small scale nuclear devices on your territory against enemy wont jusify a nuclear war ..

and
we both are in conventional war race (Pakistan aiming to match india capbility by 1/3) is the proof of that..

 

[indian navy]

well we have to think for china pakistan is no where in the question

rest check my sig

 

[deckingraj]

india has huge range of offensive weapons..such short range blastic missles have only one purpose to target a huge moving infantary vechiles with a small tactical nuke small enough not to enrage nuclear war especially if its used ON YOUR OWN SOIL

Not really sir...why did you say that....There can be multiple uses of this apart from nukes..In fact it can carry only 200KG of weapon load which means that it's main role is conventional...Though this missile is in infancy yet i would request you to look at the kind of weapons it can carry....Please read the bolded part in the article...Don't you think those roles do make sense???

its too expensive to be operated fro classical non nuclear style..they are many much cheaper ways to target an enemy..e.g through stand off glide bombs of airforce..

You mean LGB or carpet bombimg style??? b/w this just increases your options...You don't need to risk your bombers but can still get the job done....

india would have needed it if it had not a power air force and was afraid a nation might invade it..it could be possible answer to risk for a chinese war..but for pakistan any logical person would agree it changes nothing..

Depends on how you look at it...it nothing else then atleast a new option...

 

[deckingraj]

if there is a nuclear scaled war both india and pakistan have enough war heads to destroy every inch of each other (through nuclear fall out) over and over agin..i guess about 50 nuclear war heads will be enough to make nearly all india damaged so..guys dont compare damages in nuclear war..

Not sure if i agree with every inch theory but no one win's a nuclear war..so i am fine there...

once a city is targeted by either side in a nuclear war expect it to be a full nuclear war..

No doubt about it....

this may not be the case if military is targeted (bases etc however its my guess) and definitely not if you use it on your own soil..(its legitimate to use it on your terrority....)

Imagine India breaks your nuclear threshhold by destroying a major portaion of your Air-Force or capturing major chunk of land or something like that...what will your action be??? You might choose to go to International cummunity as well but there is high chance you will use nukes.....reason is simple - we break your threshold....In the same token India's nuclear doctorine clearly suggests if nukes are used on India or indian interests anywhere we will retaliate with nukes....This is our nuclear threshold...So using NASR on our troops might invite a retaliation...so your top brass also face the same dilemna - shall we use NASR in nuclear format???...In short i can argue NASR does not bring in any change...but if used as a conventional weapon then it is a very good deterrant...Same goes for Prahar...

so it also means that pakistan will never go for a nuclear war nor will india both arent children..but using a small tactical device on your own soil with limited damage is different story as it would not justify a full nuclear war in any case...

Actually this theory is dangerous...It is clearly mentioned in our doctorine...It seems you guys are not taking our doctorine seriously....

same was reason (both india and pakistan knowing that full nuclear war was out of question) that india proposed a cold start doctrine...and same is the reason why we are in a conventional war race..or it would have been very simple, why would we need such a large military/airforce and navy ..we could cut it by 2/3 without any big risk to internal security and simply relay on nukes..if nukes are placed on subs or movable plateforms as we have their no way that opposition can take them out (impossible by all means on AIP/nuclear submarine )

Irrespective of how many mobile nukes a country have it can never be a proxy for conventional might...NUkes are like white elephants...Just to show and never to be used...

bottom line its extremly childish to quote percentages of country being destroyed in nuclear war...it is ALL or none principle small scale nuclear devices on your territory against enemy wont jusify a nuclear war ..and we both are in conventional war race (Pakistan aiming to match india capbility by 1/3) is the proof of that..

How about if India uses a tactcial nuke as retaliation to Pak's use??? This whole debate on where the nuke is used is also not very smart...Too much confidence that India will not follow her doctrine even though you use nukes on her troops is also not very smart....Conventional wars should be fought conventionally and once the gene is out there is no guarantee than it will not engulf all of us...

 

[LiberalAtheist]

India only uses 5-6 KG of plutonium for its warheads the rest is Tritium and lithium deuteride

 

[Saifullah Sani]

 

[T90TankGuy]

so having your people being attacked by terrorists working for another enemy state is alright then? Indian politicians need to grow some balls and use its commandos to kill terrorists in enemy territory like USA and Israel does

that would mean then crossing the border and that in turn would mean war . i think only fools think of war when there are so many other options. our economy is growing , we grow stronger everyday , without firing a shot . and the neighbor have a lot of headaches .

 

[ziaulislam]

first we all agree current missles under discussion can theoretically carry a nuke as smallest possible war head is about 10 kg in weight ...

secondly the use of a atctical nuke of low yield on your own territy is an option that wount come into play in atleast first 3 weeks of war..i dont think so india has the capability or pakistan forces are weak to crumble so quickly even in a conventional war..

every country as a right to use a nuke in its own territy by default so..pakistan may use it early..
question is what will be indian response?
target a army base sorry to say army base would already be targeted by conventional meaans and military will be stretched to thin...
so only viable targets will be cities.
.and we all know what would that make of the situation..

most of indians think of 16 day war of 71 ignoring factor that pakistani troops in east pakistan had fundamentally became a foreign troop with support and virtually no supply..this is no longer the case..you cant repeat 71 unlesss you repeat the conditions i.e no airforce , no navy and no public support..and local fighters of a million with 1/10 outnumbered ..obviously this not possible..
much has changed since 71 but by all means i dont think india can break pakistani threshold in an conventinal war..

seeing the current economical condition, a war might scratch our econmical condition but would devastate indians..