Does India Need Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

[IND151]

India doesnt need Tactical nukes. We clearly state a nuclear attack on Indian forces anywhere will be responded by full Nuclear retaliation. Then whats its need?

We need warheads for Nirbhay missiles too and nuke tipped Nirbhay CM capable of being launched from Sea and Land must be on agenda of Indian Planners.

I know that Nirbhay is needed as we need a low cost CM with no 300 KM range limit but we need to have Nuke tipped versions of Nirbhay too.

In my opinion, we need Nirbhay 2 missile with ALCM and GLCM versions.

An ALCM version of Nirbhay is already under development, according to reports, but its range is 700 KM and it can be launched from Jaguar and Mirage 2000.

@sancho

 

[Kompromat]

@Alpha1

ERWs WILL obliterate everything in a specific diameter. It depends where you blast them.

There is no Mushroom cloud, just a bright flash!

 

[kurup]

No one going for multi megatonners anymore because of significant improvement in CEP.
And bigger bombs don't necessarily mean more destruction.
several smaller Nuclear bombs deal more damage. E.g. 3 100kt detonations at a countervalue target (city) will cause more destruction than a single 600 kt detonation

Read in a report on MIRV that Ten 50KT MIRV will have more destruction than a single 10MT nuke .

The famous example provided in Congressional testimony in 1967 by Paul Nitze for the increased counter force capability of MIRVs compared the damage inflicted by a hypothetical MIRV package of ten fifty-kiloton warheads -- i.e., the Poseidon package -- with that from a single ten-megaton warhead. The MIRVs would destroy :
- 10 times the number of airfields, soft missile sites, or other soft military targets.
- 1.2 to 1.7 times the number of hardened missile silos.

 

[Alpha1]

Read in a report on MIRV that Ten 50KT MIRV will have more destruction than a single 10MT nuke .

I think 1 MT is more correct not 10 MT If the target is a single city

The famous example provided in Congressional testimony in 1967 by Paul Nitze for the increased counter force capability of MIRVs compared the damage inflicted by a hypothetical MIRV package of ten fifty-kiloton warheads -- i.e., the Poseidon package -- with that from a single ten-megaton warhead. The MIRVs would destroy :
- 10 times the number of airfields, soft missile sites, or other soft military targets.
- 1.2 to 1.7 times the number of hardened missile silos.

But In the scenario above (multiple military targets which are conciderable distant apart) 10 50kt MIRVs will be able to do more damage than a single 10MT detonations for obvious reasons,

 

[Mav3rick]

The use of strategic Nuclear weapons, in response to a Pakistani use of tactical nuke on its own territory, would be extremely foolish for India as it would prompt the MAD. As soon as Pakistan picks up Missile launches from India, it will launch its own massive Nuclear arsenal towards Indian targets, there will be no turning back and the result would be a massive nuclear wasteland where once Pakistani and India existed.

Oh yes, India too will be wiped out, no doubt about that. After all, our 200+ Strategic Nuclear warheads are not for decoration in response to an Indian Nuclear strike.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The use of strategic Nuclear weapons, in response to a Pakistani use of tactical nuke on its own territory, would be extremely foolish for India as it would prompt the MAD. As soon as Pakistan picks up Missile launches from India, it will launch its own massive Nuclear arsenal towards Indian targets, there will be no turning back and the result would be a massive nuclear wasteland where once Pakistani and India existed.

Oh yes, India too will be wiped out, no doubt about that. After all, our 200+ Strategic Nuclear warheads are not for decoration in response to an Indian Nuclear strike.

Whatever you think does not matter.

India's Nuclear Doctrine is very clear and unambiguous. Which is as follows:
It is first of all "No First Use". With the attendant condition that if Indian Troops or Indian Territory are subjected to ANY Nuclear Attack, then the Indian Nuclear Response will be immediate and unreserved and unrestrained in any manner.
So in very simple English Language; if you are threatening something, then also be prepared to put your "money where your mouth is" and then after that also "be ready to face all the consequences in totality which will be consequent to your actions".

Its just as simple as that.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

The circumstances under which Pakistani authorities would resort to the first use of nuclear weapons are also deliberately imprecise, reflecting Rawalpindi’s view that to clarify red lines might embolden Indian military actions just beneath them.
Before publication, the Italian co-authors sent their report for review to Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, who did not object to their characterization of Gen. Kidwai’s remarks. Pakistani officials subsequently distanced themselves from this report, noting that it was not an official statement, nor a precise summary. The key passage in the trip report is as follows:

Pakistani nuclear weapons will be used, according to Gen. Kidwai, only “if the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at stake.” As reported by the Italian researchers, Gen. Kidwai offered the following explication:

Nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India. In case that deterrence fails, they will be used if:

a. India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory (space threshold)

b. India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces (military threshold)

c. India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan (economic strangling)

d. India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large scale internal subversion in Pakistan (domestic destabilization)

The authors clarify in footnotes their impression of the conversation with Gen. Kidwai that, “Examples of economic strangling of Pakistan included a naval blockade and the stopping of the waters of the Indus River,” and that, “The political destabilization and the internal subversion scenarios are considered as distinct possibilities.”

 

[Alpha1]

@Alpha1
ERWs WILL obliterate everything in a specific diameter. It depends where you blast them.

Just like any Nuclear bomb ERWs will obliterate anything in a specific Blast radius. what i am saying is that the blast/thermal radiation radius will be smaller as compared to blast/thermal radiation radius of a Fission device of equivalent yeild but the neutron radiationis is about ten times Compared to a fission bomb with equal yeild.

 

[jhungary]

For those of you who read my post in amm baat about nuclear device would know what tactical warhead is for, but not how they use them

Traditionally, other than designated first strike weapon (ie sub launch tactical nuke). Most to almost all tactical nuke are for defensive purpose. iE USING THEM ON YOUR OWN SOIL, yeah, that's "Nuke Yourselves"

US doctrine on Tactical Nuke is to fire on your front line, if you can no longer hold or holding the line is impossible and a crushing defeat is imminent. We deployed tactical nuclear warhead in West Germany during Cold War is to prevent a crushing defeat had Soviet tank roll into Europe, we would nuke West Germany so to destroy the advancing Soviet Unit and prevent a fall of all Europe, thus losing a hand to save an arm

Throughout history, many occasion were raised for the US or other country to use tactical warhead to prevent a possible defeat or invasion, occasion like Korean War (when the North Korean overran the south, if Pusan was about to fall, we will nuke South Korea) Vietnam War (when khe sanh is about to be overrun) Yom Kippua War when Israel about to lose Sinai peninsula.

That is why tactical warhead is mobile and low yield, that's because you need to deploy them quickly and you don't want it to be excessively damaging, you want to destroy an enemy invasion, not destroying your land with it.

The context with MAD will automatically risk a nuclear response to any kind of nuclear detonation on a foreign nuclear power states. So it's kind of stupid for anyone to send tactical warhead into enemy territories to risk a full scale nuclear warfare. Nuke yourselves however, can still be limited in response .

Come back to the case, the answer is yes, but not because of Pakistan, but rather for China, think about it, in a conventional war fought between China and India, would anyone not think Pakistan will allow the Chinese to use their border as jumping point for Chinese Armor invasion?

 

[Mav3rick]

Whatever you think does not matter.

India's Nuclear Doctrine is very clear and unambiguous. Which is as follows:
It is first of all "No First Use". With the attendant condition that if Indian Troops or Indian Territory are subjected to ANY Nuclear Attack, then the Indian Nuclear Response will be immediate and unreserved and unrestrained in any manner.
So in very simple English Language; if you are threatening something, then also be prepared to put your "money where your mouth is" and then after that also "be ready to face all the consequences in totality which will be consequent to your actions".

Its just as simple as that.

Understood.

Well, while we are on the subject, Pakistan's nuclear policy is quite clear as well.......absolute utilization of all strategic weapons in case of an impeding Nuclear attack. In simple words, MAD. Annihilation of both countries. Absolute annihilation!!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Understood.

Well, while we are on the subject, Pakistan's nuclear policy is quite clear as well.......absolute utilization of all strategic weapons in case of an impeding Nuclear attack. In simple words, MAD. Annihilation of both countries. Absolute annihilation!!

Of course it has to be so: M.A.D.
Therefore it must be Mutual, it must be Assured and it must be Destruction.
Anything less than that is just simply "Hot Air"!!!!!
Then it just boils down to: WHO will initiate that process?


And then remains that little niggling question; how assured and complete will be that Destruction ............
Nobody on the face of this Earth has any clear answer to that yet,

 

[Mav3rick]

Of course it has to be so: M.A.D.
Therefore it must be Mutual, it must be Assured and it must be Destruction.
Anything less than that is just simply "Hot Air"!!!!!
Then it just boils down to: WHO will initiate that process?


And then remains that little niggling question; how assured and complete will be that Destruction ............
Nobody on the face of this Earth has any clear answer to that yet,

So, now that we are both on the same page, where does that leave us? Negotiations and table talks for long term solution to all issues?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

So, now that we are both on the same page, where does that leave us? Negotiations and table talks for long term solution to all issues?

Yeah, negotiations for whatever is negotiable.
Otherwise, hold out as long as one's strength, resources and abilities allow one to. That is how Statecraft works........

 

[nair]

There will never be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan......Tactical weapon for Indian Army... I dont think India need that....Because GOI policy is any kind of nuclear attack on its forces/citizens will be considered as an a attack on the country and India reserve the rights to retaliate on what ever way it can...... Pakistan need to negate Indian army's conventional superiority..... But today the scenarios are changed..... Far is fought using air force and naval forces.....

 

[Alpha1]

@Rajaraja Chola @Capt.Popeye @Mav3rick @Rashid Mahmood @nair
There are some scenarios i can think of where tactical weapons can be used without Instigating A full scale countervalue Nuclear retalliation by India.
Incase it is used inside our territory and against Indian Invadeing forces only when our conventional forces cannot stop them.
It is not about India clearly stating it or not , It just doesn't make sense. It will be a very disproportionate response