Defence reforms a priority, says PM Narendra Modi,stresses on need to win ‘swift wars’ Narendra Modi

[Chanakyaa]

What "swift wars" does India think it will be fighting in the near future?

Certinaly not the ones with Interests frm US or Japan or Both.

 

[HariPrasad]

What "swift wars" does India think it will be fighting in the near future?

Wars are imposed on us. It is for our enemy to decide the timing. We shall defeat them.

I'm sure you are aware that Pakistan's policy for such an event (Cold Start) is nuclear escalation with Nasr tactical nuclear weapons.

We do not give any shit to Nasr. In an analysis, it was revealed that Pakistan may have to use 100, 15 KT N bomb to destroy Only half of Indian tank fleet. How ever these 100 Bomb on Pakistani soil will destroy pakistan completely. Any nuclear attack on us will give us the capability to destroy total nuclear capability of Pakistan.

 

[Indian Jatt]

Is it not? After all.. where does one foresee swift wars?

It could be for china, jaldi jao aur guss ke maroo...

 

[Abingdonboy]

“Modernisation and expansion of forces at the same time is a difficult and unnecessary goal,” he said addressing the country’s top military commanders on board aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya here.

He can only be talking to the IA here and about time.

@Echo_419 @Aminroop

 

[911]

I'm sure you are aware that Pakistan's policy for such an event (Cold Start) is nuclear escalation with Nasr tactical nuclear weapons. And India's policy in the event of tactical nuclear weapons being used on their forces, is massive nuclear retaliation, i.e. total nuclear war.

Is that the end-game you are looking for?

Unlike China and India.... Pakistan has a "First Use" nuclear policy. Their policy allows them to strike first using nuclear weapons.

If they really had guts they would had died instead of surrendering.

Most importantly this doctrine is for retaliation only.

And our no first use policy is only against non nuclear nations.

 

[vayuputhra]

[QUOTE="Chinese-Dragon, post: 7992460, member: 2968st sure you are aware that Pakistan's policy for such an event (Cold Start) is nuclear escalation with Nasr tactical nuclear weapons. And India's policy in the event of tactical nuclear weapons being used on their forces, is massive nuclear retaliation, i.e. total nuclear war.

Is that the end-game you are looking for?

Unlike China and India.... Pakistan has a "First Use" nuclear policy. Their policy allows them to strike first using nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
We have a no first use of nukes policy with only non nuke states, and for those who have nukes it is different.

 

[IceCold]

We would like to call their BLUFF one day

And we would like you to try that some day and find out.

 

[nair]

Unlike China and India.... Pakistan has a "First Use" nuclear policy. Their policy allows them to strike first using nuclear weapons.

I am sure you are aware of Indian policy on a nuclear attack.........or is it that you forget India also possess nuclear weapons and delivery system for them.....

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

I do not know why members from our neighborhood get so insecure when they hear "swift war" from India

Majority of Indian military engagements have been swift with the exception of Indian Intervention in Sri Lankan Civil war (for roughly 3 years) and 1947 Kashmir war, which lasted for one year.

All of the other military engagements of India lasted a month on average or slightly more.

 

[Bad Guy]

I'm sure you are aware that Pakistan's policy for such an event (Cold Start) is nuclear escalation with Nasr tactical nuclear weapons. And India's policy in the event of tactical nuclear weapons being used on their forces, is massive nuclear retaliation, i.e. total nuclear war.

Is that the end-game you are looking for?

Unlike China and India.... Pakistan has a "First Use" nuclear policy. Their policy allows them to strike first using nuclear weapons.

Just a 60KM range dud like Nasr (we have better missile of same class- Prahar) may destroy some of our tanks. But third class MRBMs can be destroyed within air. Here are the factors:
1. Anti missile shield
2. Against Pakistani 3 we have 21 reactors, so immediately can stop electric supply to make weapons at war time.
3. India possessed chemical weapons in past and still our pharma industry allows us to make them again.
4. Size of nuclear bombs is a big factor.
No threat will be posed by baby nukes.
5. Size of India. !!!!!!
6. Nuclear triad capability.
7. India has far more experience and success in making small reactors and instruments for civilian purposes. If 1998s TNW test wasn't thermonuclear, we have enough tech to make them properly this time.
Plus we can miniaturise warheads better and efficiently as demonstrated in civilian sector.
8. Ever heard about our fast breeder nuclear reactor program?

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

He added that India’s “strategic partnerships in Europe have deepened”.

Some good deals with France I suppose-

 

[Indian Jatt]

He can only be talking to the IA here and about time.

@Echo_419 @Aminroop

Indian army should be the main branch on which we have focus, even IAF has finally adopted tejas, but army still hates that huge monster.....i hope we had a time machine, we could had offered arjun to hitler.....it would have been game changer at that time....lol

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Whenever and wherever IA/IAF/IN or the territory of India is threatened by N attack, India will have the option to use N weapons.

Thats the gist of new clause which our doctrine had been modified with. The original NFU clause still exists and also adds its for Non nuclear states (credit to Shivshankar Menon for making first official stance of NFU only for non nuclear states in 2010). The potential of the above clause means clearly that the speech of Shyam Saran in 2013 was just a precusor. Indian did not abandon NFU but did add an ambiguity clause implying if say an example Nasr or tactical missiles which are identified to have an ability to carry N payload is detected in battlefield, then GOI does have an option to strike "first". This itself is very different from earlier Retaliatory strikes work usage which also used words like massive and punitive strikes.

This is also the very reason India had not bothered for low sub kilotons or 10 KT warheads for arming its Low range missiles like Prithvi or Prahaar. . Nor we have bothered to increase warhead count too high for so called massive second strike as retalliation or usage of Samson option - a term used in reference to Israel where Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has destroyed much of Israel.

Officially you wont find a new document in public domain indicating such changes. But the posturing and use of swift wars inspite of tactical TNWs threat is a clear indication of the new clause is added in our N doctrine...

 

[Abingdonboy]

Indian army should be the main branch on which we have focus, even IAF has finally adopted tejas, but army still hates that huge monster.....i hope we had a time machine, we could had offered arjun to hitler.....it would have been game changer at that time....lol

The Navy is to be the focus for the forseeable future.

 

[Indian Jatt]

The Navy is to be the focus for the forseeable future.

are we going to fight the chinese now???