Hatf IX Nasr Missile Tested by Pakistan

[Riz]

Another NASAR missile tested successfully today..........................

 

[Golden Eagle 007]

میزائل ’’نصر‘‘ نے بھارت کی کولڈ سٹارٹ ڈاکٹرائن تہس نہس کردی: بھارت کو دندان شکن جواب کا عندیہ دیا گیا
Share

اسلام آباد (سٹاف رپورٹر) پریڈ میں شامل ’’نصر‘‘ وہ بیلسٹک میزائل ہے جس نے بھارت کی کولڈ سٹارٹ ڈاکٹرائن کو عملی طور پر تہس نہس کردیا ہے۔ پریڈ میں دکھائے گئے ہتھیاروں کا احتیاط کے ساتھ انتخاب کرکے بھارت کو یہ پیغام دیا گیا ہے کہ وہ پاکستان کے خلاف محدود اورسرعت سے شروع کرنے والے حملے کا تصور ترک کردے ورنہ اسے دندان شکن جواب ملے گا۔ شاہین اول اور دوم بھارت کے اندر تک ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے ساتھ مار کرسکتے ہیں جبکہ بابر کروز میزائل راڈار پر نظر آئے بغیر ساڑھے سات سو کلومیٹر تک ہدف کو نشانہ بنا سکتا ہے۔




what does that mean? any comments?

 

[graphican]

اسلام آباد (سٹاف رپورٹر) پریڈ میں شامل ’’نصر‘‘ وہ بیلسٹک میزائل ہے جس نے بھارت کی کولڈ سٹارٹ ڈاکٹرائن کو عملی طور پر تہس نہس کردیا ہے۔ پریڈ میں دکھائے گئے ہتھیاروں کا احتیاط کے ساتھ انتخاب کرکے بھارت کو یہ پیغام دیا گیا ہے کہ وہ پاکستان کے خلاف محدود اورسرعت سے شروع کرنے والے حملے کا تصور ترک کردے ورنہ اسے دندان شکن جواب ملے گا۔ شاہین اول اور دوم بھارت کے اندر تک ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے ساتھ مار کرسکتے ہیں جبکہ بابر کروز میزائل راڈار پر نظر آئے بغیر ساڑھے سات سو کلومیٹر تک ہدف کو نشانہ بنا سکتا ہے۔

Not verbatim but translation of the message is following.

Nasr is a ballistic missile that has nullified India's Cold Start doctrine and was selected thoughtfully along with other equipment in the parade to give India a message that is should give-up its imagined quick-and-limited action against Pakistan or face jaw breaking response. Shaheen-I and Shaneen-II can strike deep in Indian territory with nuclear weapons while Babar cruise missile can strike targets at 750KM without becoming visible to a radar.

To put some context to aboev news bit: Shaheen I and Shaheen II has been part of parades before but Babur and Nasr were probably part of this parade for the first time.

 

[Golden Eagle 007]

Not verbatim but translation of the message is following.

Nasr is a ballistic missile that has nullified India's Cold Start doctrine and was selected thoughtfully along with other equipment in the parade to give India a message that is should give-up its imagined quick-and-limited action against Pakistan or face jaw breaking response. Shaheen-I and Shaneen-II can strike deep in Indian territory with nuclear weapons while Babar cruise missile can strike targets at 750KM without becoming visible to a radar.

To put some context to aboev news bit: Shaheen I and Shaheen II has been part of parades before but Babur and Nasr were probably part of this parade for the first time.

How come theier whole doctrine is nullified with just one type of missile?

 

[Dalit]

How come theier whole doctrine is nullified with just one type of missile?

What is so hard to figure out about that? These are just mind games and useless muscle flexing. Neither India and nor Pakistan will do anything. They can't. The world won't allow these nuclear countries to go to war. You can be rest assured.

 

[graphican]

How come theier whole doctrine is nullified with just one type of missile?

It can evaporate entire mechanized and artillery division. It can carry tactile nuclear weapon and reaches its target within minutes without going into atmosphere and thus gives no visibility/opportunity to missile defense systems. We do not know how quick it travels but It is light-weight and mobile in nature + a single launcher can release 4 of these together, thus one launcher can destroy more or less a 10 square KM area leaving nothing alive except cockroaches.

As of my info, there are no mobile missile defense systems and armies cannot operate/stay under protected zones If they are invade into an enemy territory. Such invading enemies would be vulnerable to all sort of attacks and no enemy can withstand a battlefield nuclear attack.

Previously, nuclear weapons were expected to be used against cities and large military bases which were fixed and always there - but Nasr has given us a unique ability to use nuclear weapons in the battlefield against mobile and aggressive enemy. Got the point?

 

[alimobin memon]

Its stupid to use Nukes to counter Corps of Cold start doctrine. with only 5kn to 10kn warhead it would not do enough damage to tanks with pressurized NBC suites in formation gap of even 10meters.
Create a Nuclear Firestorm - Nuclear Weapons Explosion Simulator | Nuclear Darkness & Nuclear Famine
Size Nasr missile indicates that warhead cannot be more than 7kn to 10kn. According to this simulator and my calculations its not enough to counter strike corps that india will deploy in Cold Start.

 

[HRK]

Its stupid to use Nukes to counter Corps of Cold start doctrine.

Cold start is a doctrine based on the belief that India has the capability to wage a conventional war under nuclear the threshold, its further emphasis on holding the territory to use as bargain-chip

So basically three things comes out clearly from the COLD START DOCTRINE

1- CAPABILITIES (and/or INTENTIONS) of our enemy to wage a conventional war.
2- Availability of 'CONVENIENT SPACE' to our enemy in our defence approach under NUCLEAR THRESHOLD
3- HOLDING of PAKISTANI TERRITORY (not just capturing the land during the war) for unspecific period of time.

So the question is how is NASR an encounter of COLD START DOCTRINE ??

1- Counter to disparity of Conventional Capabilities:

India do have superiority in conventional forces because of this they believe that their conventional superiority can win them a LIMITED WAR against Pakistan & for this they have an immediate example of KARGIL WAR as a reference.

Here they should understand as a general rule of thumb that NUCLEAR capability neutralize the conventional superiority which mean whichever the scope of war would be (limited or full blown) with the introduction of nuclear option in that scenario the dynamic of the war would change immediately & the question of parity or disparity in conventional forces wold not remain relevant.

At that stage the more relevant question for the leadership of both of the countries would be

How far they wanna go for the desire objectives and the cost associated with those objectives ?

2- Counter to CONVENIENT SPACE:

The question raised above represent a scenario which would not be convenient for the leadership of both the countries, hence effectively denying the space available to Indian forces to wage a war be it a limited conventional war.

Cold Start in its basics is (was) a concept of limited conventional war with the assumption that Pakistan's response would also remain limited to the conventional means only where she does not enjoy relative parity with India, so it was supposedly convenient for Indian forces to Attack & Neutralize the Pakistani forces in the certain limited area to capture & hold the Pakistani Territory (same as Kargil).

With the induction of Tactical Nuclear option that convenient zone does not exist any more, now the price associated with the desire objective would be more then the leadership of India might be willing to bear, further it shows that the Pakistan's response will not remain limited to conventional means only so in response to Pakistan's TNW Indian side might have to go for full nuclear response or would have to increase the scale of war in both case the war would not remain limited, so the basic purpose of COLD START would be dead.

3- Counter to Indian Objective of Holding Pakistani territory

As said earlier it will raise the cost of war even at 'limited war scenario' particularly for Indian holding corps as they will be the first one to pay the price in Tactical Nuclear War scenario, this will obviously limit the capabilities of Indian forces to hold a chunk of Pakistani territory for a longer period of time.

An attack on Indian holding corps even with in the territory of Pakistan will ask Indian response of bigger magnitude which will have its own implication but would suddenly kill the doctrine of LIMITED WAR.

 

[alimobin memon]

Cold start is a doctrine based on the belief that India has the capability to wage a conventional war under nuclear the threshold, its further emphasis on holding the territory to use as bargain-chip

So basically three things comes out clearly from the COLD START DOCTRINE

1- CAPABILITIES (and/or INTENTIONS) of our enemy to wage a conventional war.
2- Availability of 'CONVENIENT SPACE' to our enemy in our defence approach under NUCLEAR THRESHOLD
3- HOLDING of PAKISTANI TERRITORY (not just capturing the land during the war) for unspecific period of time.

So the question is how is NASR an encounter of COLD START DOCTRINE ??

1- Counter to disparity of Conventional Capabilities:

India do have superiority in conventional forces because of this they believe that their conventional superiority can win them a LIMITED WAR against Pakistan & for this they have an immediate example of KARGIL WAR as a reference.

Here they should understand as a general rule of thumb that NUCLEAR capability neutralize the conventional superiority which mean whichever the scope of war would be (limited or full blown) with the introduction of nuclear option in that scenario the dynamic of the war would change immediately & the question of parity or disparity in conventional forces wold not remain relevant.

At that stage the more relevant question for the leadership of both of the countries would be

How far they wanna go for the desire objectives and the cost associated with those objectives ?

2- Counter to CONVENIENT SPACE:

The question raised above represent a scenario which would not be convenient for the leadership of both the countries, hence effectively denying the space available to Indian forces to wage a war be it a limited conventional war.

Cold Start in its basics is (was) a concept of limited conventional war with the assumption that Pakistan's response would also remain limited to the conventional means only where she does not enjoy relative parity with India, so it was supposedly convenient for Indian forces to Attack & Neutralize the Pakistani forces in the certain limited area to capture & hold the Pakistani Territory (same as Kargil).

With the induction of Tactical Nuclear option that convenient zone does not exist any more, now the price associated with the desire objective would be more then the leadership of India might be willing to bear, further it shows that the Pakistan's response will not remain limited to conventional means only so in response to Pakistan's TNW Indian side might have to go for full nuclear response or would have to increase the scale of war in both case the war would not remain limited, so the basic purpose of COLD START would be dead.

3- Counter to Indian Objective of Holding Pakistani territory

As said earlier it will raise the cost of war even at 'limited war scenario' particularly for Indian holding corps as they will be the first one to pay the price in Tactical Nuclear War scenario, this will obviously limit the capabilities of Indian forces to hold a chunk of Pakistani territory for a longer period of time.

An attack on Indian holding corps even with in the territory of Pakistan will ask Indian response of bigger magnitude which will have its own implication but would suddenly kill the doctrine of LIMITED WAR.

The Indian response would be full escalation no matter if War doctrine is killed it will lead to worse.

 

[HRK]

The Indian response would be full escalation no matter if War doctrine is killed it will lead to worse.

& this is what the Pakistan's strategy as a full scale nuclear war would be much costly for India as well, which India also want to avoid & COLD START DOCTRINE itself is a proof of Indian strategic compulsion.

 

[alimobin memon]

& this is what the Pakistan's strategy as a full scale nuclear war would be much costly for India as well, which India also want to avoid & COLD START DOCTRINE itself is a proof of Indian strategic compulsion.

I think that means cold start is itself a failure to launch (Y)

 

[Safriz]

So was Nasr Missiles' range increased to 180 km according to this thread from 2012?
Read first page.