Dhanoa's 'Plan B' and implications for Pakistan

[Signalian]

IAF will get air superiority over Pakistan in 2 days, 3 days tops.
Current generation IA tanks cannot be stopped by your current generation tanks and LAT/HAT teams.

It is exactly this kind of delusion, keeping alive dreams of a paper tiger while completely hindering rational thinking. Mind boggling at its best, without any result.

 

[syed_yusuf]

There is no confirmation from the Pakistani side that the Nasrs are equipped with nuclear warheads.



Of course. But we believe that in a Cold Start setting, you won't use nukes anyway. Your tac nukes are a bluff. The reason is if you stick tac nukes on the Nasr and move them around at the beginning of hostilities, we will go nuclear first.

Total war, you will likely use nukes, but we want to build up our BMD and counterforce capability before we start talking about war.

People here are claiming you will use Ra'ad and Babur with nukes. But if you do not properly define and separate your conventional armaments from nuclear ones, then we will be justified in using strategic nuclear weapons the minute you start moving around a Ra'ad with a conventional warhead.

Ours are properly defined and separated. As of now, so are yours. If you upset that balance, you know the consequences.



You have to look at it long term. China will very soon have the capacity to build up at the level of the US today. Which means they will take 10-15 years to build up to American levels.



Sure. For India, 10 years to equal US/China in terms of expenditure. And 10-15 years to build up to their level.

So 2030-35 for China, 2040-45 for India.

And this is only for the navy. When it comes to the army and air force, it is obviously much faster.

You do realise that India already has 3 submarine lines, right?

2040-45 is a long ways away.



This is how our thinking is currently.
Your tac nukes don't exist.
IAF will get air superiority over Pakistan in 2 days, 3 days tops.
Current generation IA tanks cannot be stopped by your current generation tanks and LAT/HAT teams.



MIRV won't matter. By the time enough is deployed, we will be moving towards laser based BMD as well.

If we all go nuckear, Hindu civilization will seize to exist while Muslim civilization will continue

Going nuckear is not an option for Bharat

It took us 7 days to achieve complete air superiority over Afghanistan. And u would like to achieve over Pakistan in 2-3 days good luck

 

[randomradio]

It is exactly this kind of delusion, keeping alive dreams of a paper tiger while completely hindering rational thinking. Mind boggling at its best, without any result.

F-16 Block 52s have never demonstrated any superiority over the MKI in all exercises we have been in. That's why even our plan for a two front war is to wipe out the PAF quickly and deploy our assets to the eastern regions.

We won't be doing that if we didn't have confidence in our stuff.

If we all go nuckear, Hindu civilization will seize to exist while Muslim civilization will continue

Going nuckear is not an option for Bharat

It took us 7 days to achieve complete air superiority over Afghanistan. And u would like to achieve over Pakistan in 2-3 days good luck

Read post 61. Let's talk about nukes when you have the capacity to destroy 8500 urban settlements.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is exactly this kind of delusion, keeping alive dreams of a paper tiger while completely hindering rational thinking. Mind boggling at its best, without any result.

Nice to see you here. Now you understand what threat assessment means? Before discussing 5th gen fighters, first understand what threats you are facing, and what high level plan you will use to eliminate them.

 

[Hamza913]

There is no confirmation from the Pakistani side that the Nasrs are equipped with nuclear warheads.



Of course. But we believe that in a Cold Start setting, you won't use nukes anyway. Your tac nukes are a bluff. The reason is if you stick tac nukes on the Nasr and move them around at the beginning of hostilities, we will go nuclear first.

Total war, you will likely use nukes, but we want to build up our BMD and counterforce capability before we start talking about war.

People here are claiming you will use Ra'ad and Babur with nukes. But if you do not properly define and separate your conventional armaments from nuclear ones, then we will be justified in using strategic nuclear weapons the minute you start moving around a Ra'ad with a conventional warhead.

Ours are properly defined and separated. As of now, so are yours. If you upset that balance, you know the consequences.



You have to look at it long term. China will very soon have the capacity to build up at the level of the US today. Which means they will take 10-15 years to build up to American levels.



Sure. For India, 10 years to equal US/China in terms of expenditure. And 10-15 years to build up to their level.

So 2030-35 for China, 2040-45 for India.

And this is only for the navy. When it comes to the army and air force, it is obviously much faster.

You do realise that India already has 3 submarine lines, right?

2040-45 is a long ways away.



This is how our thinking is currently.
Your tac nukes don't exist.
IAF will get air superiority over Pakistan in 2 days, 3 days tops.
Current generation IA tanks cannot be stopped by your current generation tanks and LAT/HAT teams.



MIRV won't matter. By the time enough is deployed, we will be moving towards laser based BMD as well.

You can invade us and find out for yourself. Saying we don't have tactical nukes is like saying Israel doesn't have nukes. Just because we don't confirm it doesn't mean they don't exist.

You won't use conventional nukes on Pakistan just because we use tactical nukes, get real. There is no logical reason to do so, if we use tactical nukes on our own soil that doesn't effect Hindustan at all, but if you use conventional nuclear missiles against us, we will do the same to you and then Hindustan is screwed. Your military will not be as stupid as you to just nuke us because they can't break our defences.

And our nukes will develop countermeasures to overcome your BMD, we already have MIRV. BMD systems are still a long way from sucessfully defending countries from a nuclear strike.

You're acting as if the US won't accelerate either, spoiler alert but they will. Nobody will be as powerful as them militarily for the next century unless a miracle occurs.

I hope your army isn't as brain damaged as you are, if you genuinely think your tanks are unstoppable and that your Air force can obtain air superiority in a few days, I seriously question whether or not you have any clue what you're babbling on about.

 

[randomradio]

You can invade us and find out for yourself.

I already said that we won't be invading for a long time anyway.

Saying we don't have tactical nukes is like saying Israel doesn't have nukes. Just because we don't confirm it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Israel is not facing nuclear powers. If you don't confirm your delivery platforms, then India has the advantage of first strike and a completely justified nuclear war.

You won't use conventional nukes on Pakistan just because we use tactical nukes, get real. There is no logical reason to do so, if we use tactical nukes on our own soil that doesn't effect Hindustan at all, but if you use conventional nuclear missiles against us, we will do the same to you and then Hindustan is screwed. Your military will not be as stupid as you to just nuke us because they can't break our defences.

What kind of logic is that? The fear of India responding massively forces you not to use tac nukes in the first place.

And no, we are not going to use nukes for warfighting, it's for deterrence. But if we are forced to use nukes, the response will be massive.

Here's what we think. If we stick to Cold Start only, our units will win some and lose some. And we will use the territory gained for concessions. Pakistan's bluffing about using tac nukes. If you use nukes, we use nukes, simple. So the option is not "Pakistan will use tac nukes, obliterate the IBGs and force India to retreat." The option is "Pakistan will not use tac nukes because India will then obliterate Pakistan once and for all in an all out strike. And if Pakistan manages to retaliate and damage some of India's cities in the process, we will rebuild, but Pakistan will no longer exist."

Tac nukes are basically the end game. We are going to see it as a nuclear attack. The reason is once you go nuclear, the hawks are going to make the decision, not the doves. The minute war starts, it will be hawks all the way.

As I said sometime ago, any major Indo-Pak war will be the last Indo-Pak war. This is already the thinking within South Block.

And our nukes will develop countermeasures to overcome your BMD, we already have MIRV. BMD systems are still a long way from sucessfully defending countries from a nuclear strike.

MIRVs are not as effective as you think. Their original function used to be to overwhelm defences with numbers, but today, with AESA radar, networking, advanced seekers, HTK etc, its effectiveness in terms of BMD countermeasure is highly questionable.

You're acting as if the US won't accelerate either, spoiler alert but they will. Nobody will be as powerful as them militarily for the next century unless a miracle occurs.

The miracle is already occurring in India and China with extremely high growth. In just one generation, the entire population is being lifted out of poverty.

The US can't accelerate, they have saturated. They will be lucky to hit 3% in consistent growth.

I hope your army isn't as brain damaged as you are, if you genuinely think your tanks are unstoppable and that your Air force can obtain air superiority in a few days, I seriously question whether or not you have any clue what you're babbling on about.

When it comes to tanks, 2nd generation ATGMs have been bouncing off the T-90's armour in Syria. You are not going to put a dent in the T-90's armour with your current set ATGMs. At the very least, you now need top attack ATGMs, your current inventory is zero.

When it comes to air superiority in the Indo-Pak scenario, I was told this by actual high ranking officers in the Indian forces. Also, Plan B relies on the assumption that India will get complete air superiority in just 3 days. That's why most of the assets were moved away from the Pak border to the Chinese border on the 4th and 5th day. So you have already seen it being implemented in action. The Indian Armed Forces are not in the habit of doing frivolous things.

 

[Hamza913]

I already said that we won't be invading for a long time anyway.



Israel is not facing nuclear powers. If you don't confirm your delivery platforms, then India has the advantage of first strike and a completely justified nuclear war.



What kind of logic is that? The fear of India responding massively forces you not to use tac nukes in the first place.

And no, we are not going to use nukes for warfighting, it's for deterrence. But if we are forced to use nukes, the response will be massive.

Here's what we think. If we stick to Cold Start only, our units will win some and lose some. And we will use the territory gained for concessions. Pakistan's bluffing about using tac nukes. If you use nukes, we use nukes, simple. So the option is not "Pakistan will use tac nukes, obliterate the IBGs and force India to retreat." The option is "Pakistan will not use tac nukes because India will then obliterate Pakistan once and for all in an all out strike. And if Pakistan manages to retaliate and damage some of India's cities in the process, we will rebuild, but Pakistan will no longer exist."

Tac nukes are basically the end game. We are going to see it as a nuclear attack. The reason is once you go nuclear, the hawks are going to make the decision, not the doves. The minute war starts, it will be hawks all the way.

As I said sometime ago, any major Indo-Pak war will be the last Indo-Pak war. This is already the thinking within South Block.



MIRVs are not as effective as you think. Their original function used to be to overwhelm defences with numbers, but today, with AESA radar, networking, advanced seekers, HTK etc, its effectiveness in terms of BMD countermeasure is highly questionable.



The miracle is already occurring in India and China with extremely high growth. In just one generation, the entire population is being lifted out of poverty.

The US can't accelerate, they have saturated. They will be lucky to hit 3% in consistent growth.



When it comes to tanks, 2nd generation ATGMs have been bouncing off the T-90's armour in Syria. You are not going to put a dent in the T-90's armour with your current set ATGMs. At the very least, you now need top attack ATGMs, your current inventory is zero.

When it comes to air superiority in the Indo-Pak scenario, I was told this by actual high ranking officers in the Indian forces. Also, Plan B relies on the assumption that India will get complete air superiority in just 3 days. That's why most of the assets were moved away from the Pak border to the Chinese border on the 4th and 5th day. So you have already seen it being implemented in action. The Indian Armed Forces are not in the habit of doing frivolous things.

No, you won't do that. You are not stupid enough to shoot yourself in the foot by launching nukes just because your attacks fail, it isn't as simple as just rebuilding, the effects of nuclear warfare are more than just turning a place to rubble.

We're a pretty big country, we'll survive too.

Whatever, we'll know BMD is good when countries who have BMD systems start fighting nuclear armed nations.

As for Hindustan or China catching up with the US, I'll believe it if I see it. Until then, I'll laugh at the idea.

Your tank force is not impenetrable, get real. They won't be walking into Pakistan without struggle, but if it helps you sleep at night, continue thinking that. Likewise with your mythical claim of air superiority being achieved in days. Ever think the guy you spoke to lied to boost morale?

 

[Taimoor Khan]

That's nice. But conventional weapons are better.

A golf ball size TNW with the destruction power of MOAB, maybe in Indian logic conventional weapons are better but here in Pakistan we believe is more with less, smart weapons, which gives us clean and quick victory.

 

[waz]

When it comes to tanks, 2nd generation ATGMs have been bouncing off the T-90's armour in Syria. You are not going to put a dent in the T-90's armour with your current set ATGMs. At the very least, you now need top attack ATGMs, your current inventory is zero.

What?

This one above survived, but one more hit?

Not a dent you say!

As for top down, it's only a matter of time before Pakistan acquires the HJ-12.

 

[randomradio]

No, you won't do that. You are not stupid enough to shoot yourself in the foot by launching nukes just because your attacks fail, it isn't as simple as just rebuilding, the effects of nuclear warfare are more than just turning a place to rubble.

We're a pretty big country, we'll survive too.

So nukes are useful against India, but useless against Pakistan.

Whatever, we'll know BMD is good when countries who have BMD systems start fighting nuclear armed nations.

Those who have BMD actually test it you know.

Your tank force is not impenetrable, get real. They won't be walking into Pakistan without struggle, but if it helps you sleep at night, continue thinking that. Likewise with your mythical claim of air superiority being achieved in days. Ever think the guy you spoke to lied to boost morale?

Why do I need a morale boost?

The exercises were real enough, weren't they?

What?

This one above survived, but one more hit?

Not a dent you say!

As for top down, it's only a matter of time before Pakistan acquires the HJ-12.

First video - T-72. Doesn't look like it was destroyed anyway. Disabled at best.
Second video - The tank was abandoned and set on fire by the crew.
Third video - Unharmed. The crew left the hatch open.

As for HJ-12, sure, buy it. Then we can speak of at least the LAT teams being slightly more effective than they are now. But remember that by the time you get it, our T-90s will be getting hard kill APS.

 

[Hamza913]

So nukes are useful against India, but useless against Pakistan.



Those who have BMD actually test it you know.



Why do I need a morale boost?

The exercises were real enough, weren't they?.

I never said that, I said conventional nukes will never be fired at Pakistan in reponse to Pakistan using tactical nukes on it's own soil.

Like I said, we will see how effective it is once the countries who have it start challenging nuclear nations.

Because the real situation is nowhere near as in your favour as you think it is. A full scale war would likely either result in a stalemate or MAD.

 

[randomradio]

I never said that, I said conventional nukes will never be fired at Pakistan in reponse to Pakistan using tactical nukes on it's own soil.

If you use nukes on us, we will 100% use nukes on you.

We have literally spelt it out too.
http://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/indias-nuclear-doctrine

1. A No First Use posture i.e nuclear weapons to be used only in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere,
2. Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be “massive” and designed to inflict “unacceptable damage”.

You use nukes on our troops, we retaliate with full force.

I'll repeat again, you use even one nuke on us, even accidentally, we are going massive. This includes biological and chemical weapons.

In case, Pakistan even "moves nukes around" during the commencement of hostilities, we will retaliate with nukes, and again, the strike will be massive.

Pakistan has not yet deployed tactical nukes. And in case that happens, the GoI may be forced to withdraw NFU. We are very, very, very serious about this.

Pakistan's tac nukes are a bluff. PA is not stupid enough to have nukes dropped on Pakistan first.

https://scroll.in/latest/851373/pak...weapons-to-counter-indias-cold-start-doctrine
Pakistan has developed short-range nuclear weapons to counter the “Cold Start” military doctrine adopted by the Indian Armed Forces, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Wednesday.

“We do not have any fielded tactical nuclear weapons,” PTI quoted him as saying. “We have developed short-range nuclear weapons as a counter to the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine that India has developed.”

Your own PM says you haven't deployed tac nukes.

Like I said, we will see how effective it is once the countries who have it start challenging nuclear nations.

No non-nuclear country will militarily challenge a nuclear nation even if BMD works 100%.

But then, you see Iran doing that against Israel every day, and they don't even have BMD. So politics is the main determining factor, not the presence of BMD.

Because the real situation is nowhere near as in your favour as you think it is. A full scale war would likely either result in a stalemate or MAD.

MAD doesn't exist. For MAD to happen, you need the ability to destroy 8500 towns and cities in Indian, and even then that's only 40% of our population. MAD has never existed even in the US-Soviet context.

And as I have already mentioned before India won't fight a war only to achieve a stalemate. There won't be a war until we get the ability to completely crush Pakistan one-sidedly. But then, when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, economic and diplomatic pressures are more effective and cheaper.

 

[Hamza913]

If you use nukes on us, we will 100% use nukes on you.

We have literally spelt it out too.
http://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/indias-nuclear-doctrine

1. A No First Use posture i.e nuclear weapons to be used only in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere,
2. Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be “massive” and designed to inflict “unacceptable damage”.

You use nukes on our troops, we retaliate with full force.

I'll repeat again, you use even one nuke on us, even accidentally, we are going massive. This includes biological and chemical weapons.

In case, Pakistan even "moves nukes around" during the commencement of hostilities, we will retaliate with nukes, and again, the strike will be massive.

Pakistan has not yet deployed tactical nukes. And in case that happens, the GoI may be forced to withdraw NFU. We are very, very, very serious about this.

Pakistan's tac nukes are a bluff. PA is not stupid enough to have nukes dropped on Pakistan first.

https://scroll.in/latest/851373/pak...weapons-to-counter-indias-cold-start-doctrine
Pakistan has developed short-range nuclear weapons to counter the “Cold Start” military doctrine adopted by the Indian Armed Forces, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Wednesday.

“We do not have any fielded tactical nuclear weapons,” PTI quoted him as saying. “We have developed short-range nuclear weapons as a counter to the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine that India has developed.”

Your own PM says you haven't deployed tac nukes.



No non-nuclear country will militarily challenge a nuclear nation even if BMD works 100%.

But then, you see Iran doing that against Israel every day, and they don't even have BMD. So politics is the main determining factor, not the presence of BMD.



MAD doesn't exist. For MAD to happen, you need the ability to destroy 8500 towns and cities in Indian, and even then that's only 40% of our population. MAD has never existed even in the US-Soviet context.

And as I have already mentioned before India won't fight a war only to achieve a stalemate. There won't be a war until we get the ability to completely crush Pakistan one-sidedly. But then, when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, economic and diplomatic pressures are more effective and cheaper.

Just because you say you will do something doesn't mean you will, remember those so called "surgical strikes"? It's merely an attempt to intimidate Pakistan so we don't use tactical nukes. We will call your bluff if you push us into a situation where we have no other option, and I doubt you will start nuking Pakistan over tactical nukes, it would be unnecessarily shooting yourself in the foot. Even if you did, we will do the same to you.

The PM is only saying such things because tactical nukes are highly frowned upon, the fact is we have tactical nukes. Nasr is clear proof of this. If you are really going to use mere words as proof, then by that logic Israel has no nuclear weapons since they deny having them as well. He also still said Pakistan has short ranged nuclear missiles to counter your Cold Start doctrine.

If BMD truly worked, yes they would. After all, if BMD worked they'd have nothing to fear if they have the conventional upper hand. Politics plays a role too, but so does BMD (assuming it even works, which I highly doubt).

Iran challenges Israel because Israel is tiny. You don't need nukes to wipe them out, a decent number of regular missiles will cause enough damage to make them back down. Even if you don't think that's the case, Iran still doesn't count since they have not engaged in direct warfare with Israel, even after Israel has bombed their positions in Syria.

MAD does exist and is exactly what will happen if nuclear war starts between Pakistan and Hindustan. Nukes do more than just make big explosions, they have terrible after effects like radiation. Hindustan will lose hundreds of millions of people and have plenty of its land uninhabitable for quite some time.

Which is why I've said there is unlikely to ever be a war, if the US doesn't have such an advantage over Russia (despite spending 600 billion USD on its military whilst Russia spends less than 50 billion USD), then Hindustan will not obtain such an advantage either for the forseeable future. It's almost guaranteed that we will be able to screw you up bad if you ever launch a mass invasion of Pakistan. We won't quite be able to conquer you for another 1000 years, but being able to make you bleed is sufficient.

 

[randomradio]

Just because you say you will do something doesn't mean you will, remember those so called "surgical strikes"? It's merely an attempt to intimidate Pakistan so we don't use tactical nukes. We will call your bluff if you push us into a situation where we have no other option, and I doubt you will start nuking Pakistan over tactical nukes, it would be unnecessarily shooting yourself in the foot. Even if you did, we will do the same to you.

This is exactly why you won't use tac nukes on us. A limited war will stay short and limited, because the alternative is total war, with full use of nukes. These are the only two choices we are giving you.

So if you have fooled yourself into believing you will escape nuclear retribution simply because you used only tac nukes on your soil, then you are sorely mistaken. You are simply giving the excuse for India to retaliate with an all out nuclear strike first.

Of course, there will be an escalation matrix even for us, but I don't believe it will survive contact with the enemy.

The PM is only saying such things because tactical nukes are highly frowned upon, the fact is we have tactical nukes. Nasr is clear proof of this. If you are really going to use mere words as proof, then by that logic Israel has no nuclear weapons since they deny having them as well. He also still said Pakistan has short ranged nuclear missiles to counter your Cold Start doctrine.

The difference between a tac and a strat nukes is the deployment. The IA even has access to nukes on artillery shells, but it's under the control of the SFC, not the IA. The idea behind tac nukes is the ability to use it immediately during a battle, without any warning. If you have the so-called "tac nukes" are stored safely away under central control and not under the command of field commanders, then it's not a tac nuke.

If BMD truly worked, yes they would. After all, if BMD worked they'd have nothing to fear if they have the conventional upper hand. Politics plays a role too, but so does BMD (assuming it even works, which I highly doubt).

No chance. BMD is too expensive and non-nuclear nations will not spend money at it in the first place. You already see how badly the Americans are reacting to the S-400 sales. And most of it has nothing to do with Russia in the first place. They have seen it in action in Syria and really fear it.

Even non-nuclear nations will never take a risk antagonising a nuclear nation simply because nuclear nations have powerful armies that can enter cities at will and blow that city up with a nuke transported to the area in a truck. BMDs can also be vulnerable to fighter jets.

You are confusing protecting a city or a base with protecting an entire country with BMD. Just because you have BMD doesn't mean you are invulnerable. You will still have undefended areas. Even a country like India will have many towns and cities that will remain unprotected from a concentrated attack. So if your attacks on Delhi and Mumbai fail, you can still attack cities like Jaipur and Ludhiana. If the attacks on Jaipur and Ludhiana fail, then you can attack Amritsar and Jodhpur. So there is always something still available at any one time and this is a big problem for non-nuclear nations because they can't fight back.

Iran challenges Israel because Israel is tiny. You don't need nukes to wipe them out, a decent number of regular missiles will cause enough damage to make them back down. Even if you don't think that's the case, Iran still doesn't count since they have not engaged in direct warfare with Israel, even after Israel has bombed their positions in Syria.

All of China's conventional missiles and artillery cannot destroy Taiwan, think about that first.

MAD does exist and is exactly what will happen if nuclear war starts between Pakistan and Hindustan. Nukes do more than just make big explosions, they have terrible after effects like radiation. Hindustan will lose hundreds of millions of people and have plenty of its land uninhabitable for quite some time.

The terrible after-effects of nukes "that you have in mind" were made up.

Nukes kill people at points of impact, and then some. Then there will be many who survive but are irradiated and may die at a later date. Some may become sterile and some may develop cancer. But those who escape these conditions will comfortably live a long and healthy life.

The effects of fallout have been exaggerated as well, and so has this "Nuclear Winter" story.

Which is why I've said there is unlikely to ever be a war, if the US doesn't have such an advantage over Russia (despite spending 600 billion USD on its military whilst Russia spends less than 50 billion USD), then Hindustan will not obtain such an advantage either for the forseeable future. It's almost guaranteed that we will be able to screw you up bad if you ever launch a mass invasion of Pakistan. We won't quite be able to conquer you for another 1000 years, but being able to make you bleed is sufficient.

The US defence expenditure is not as big as you think. They need more. Markets determine size. The difference between a dollar in Russia and dollar in the US is 3.5. That means the US needs $3.5 to match $1 in Russia. So if the US has a $600B budget, then the Russians can match it if their budget is $171B.

Similarly, the difference between the US and China is 2:1. The Chinese need a $300B budget to match the American budget of $600B.

Of course, once you remove personnel from the equation, the difference increases even more, because the Americans spend over $200B on pay and perks alone, which has nothing to do with warfighting.

But the ratio between India and Pakistan is 1:1. The $ has equal value in both countries and will remain so for many decades.

India will comfortably gain this advantage in just a decade in fact. We already have this advantage at sea, you obviously cannot dispute that. And we recently got this advantage in the air a few years ago and the difference will only get bigger over the next few years. I am talking about a huge advantage, like the one the IN have over the PN. Now the only service wing left is the army. The IA believes they will be "ready to fight" after 2025. In other words, the IA will gain an insurmountable advantage over Pakistan after 2025.

 

[Hamza913]

This is exactly why you won't use tac nukes on us. A limited war will stay short and limited, because the alternative is total war, with full use of nukes. These are the only two choices we are giving you.

So if you have fooled yourself into believing you will escape nuclear retribution simply because you used only tac nukes on your soil, then you are sorely mistaken. You are simply giving the excuse for India to retaliate with an all out nuclear strike first.

Of course, there will be an escalation matrix even for us, but I don't believe it will survive contact with the enemy.



The difference between a tac and a strat nukes is the deployment. The IA even has access to nukes on artillery shells, but it's under the control of the SFC, not the IA. The idea behind tac nukes is the ability to use it immediately during a battle, without any warning. If you have the so-called "tac nukes" are stored safely away under central control and not under the command of field commanders, then it's not a tac nuke.



No chance. BMD is too expensive and non-nuclear nations will not spend money at it in the first place. You already see how badly the Americans are reacting to the S-400 sales. And most of it has nothing to do with Russia in the first place. They have seen it in action in Syria and really fear it.

Even non-nuclear nations will never take a risk antagonising a nuclear nation simply because nuclear nations have powerful armies that can enter cities at will and blow that city up with a nuke transported to the area in a truck. BMDs can also be vulnerable to fighter jets.

You are confusing protecting a city or a base with protecting an entire country with BMD. Just because you have BMD doesn't mean you are invulnerable. You will still have undefended areas. Even a country like India will have many towns and cities that will remain unprotected from a concentrated attack. So if your attacks on Delhi and Mumbai fail, you can still attack cities like Jaipur and Ludhiana. If the attacks on Jaipur and Ludhiana fail, then you can attack Amritsar and Jodhpur. So there is always something still available at any one time and this is a big problem for non-nuclear nations because they can't fight back.



All of China's conventional missiles and artillery cannot destroy Taiwan, think about that first.



The terrible after-effects of nukes "that you have in mind" were made up.

Nukes kill people at points of impact, and then some. Then there will be many who survive but are irradiated and may die at a later date. Some may become sterile and some may develop cancer. But those who escape these conditions will comfortably live a long and healthy life.

The effects of fallout have been exaggerated as well, and so has this "Nuclear Winter" story.



The US defence expenditure is not as big as you think. They need more. Markets determine size. The difference between a dollar in Russia and dollar in the US is 3.5. That means the US needs $3.5 to match $1 in Russia. So if the US has a $600B budget, then the Russians can match it if their budget is $171B.

Similarly, the difference between the US and China is 2:1. The Chinese need a $300B budget to match the American budget of $600B.

Of course, once you remove personnel from the equation, the difference increases even more, because the Americans spend over $200B on pay and perks alone, which has nothing to do with warfighting.

But the ratio between India and Pakistan is 1:1. The $ has equal value in both countries and will remain so for many decades.

India will comfortably gain this advantage in just a decade in fact. We already have this advantage at sea, you obviously cannot dispute that. And we recently got this advantage in the air a few years ago and the difference will only get bigger over the next few years. I am talking about a huge advantage, like the one the IN have over the PN. Now the only service wing left is the army. The IA believes they will be "ready to fight" after 2025. In other words, the IA will gain an insurmountable advantage over Pakistan after 2025.

Unless you have anything new to add to the topic of tactical nukes, I think our discussion on that issue is over. Let's agree to disagree.

That's exactly my point. It cannot defend a whole nation. Nuclear missiles have already developed countermeasures via MIRV and will continue to do so for any future upgrades of BMD systems. As you also rightly said, BMD systems can be taken out and are very expensive.

I doubt that, I'm fairly certain China could do that to Taiwan if they pleased (but Taiwan could give a nasty bite).

You are grossly underestimating the power of over a hundred nukes. They DO cause some nasty after effects.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...die-if-india-pakistan-start-nuclear-war-21623

I listed the spending in terms of USD, and even if you take away the huge amount of cash spent on perks for troops, you are still left with a budget of over 400 billion USD which is far larger than Russia's current spending.

Hindustan's dominance at sea is exaggerated. We can still defend ourselves from a blockade for a reasonable amount of time with our submerged fleet which will face a fresh supply of 8 new submarines pretty soon. We have also bought 4 new Chinese Type 54A frigates, and have CM-400AKG missiles that can pose a nasty threat to your carriers. We are expanding our navy and will continue to do as our economy improves, same goes for the rest of our military.

As said before, you are unlikely to gain a considerable advantage over us anytime soon.

Unless you have anything new to add, I think this conversation of ours is over.