Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.Both Pakistan's and later India's tact nukes will fall on Pakistani soil. I can live with that.
India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
The whole point of deploying and potentially using tactical nukes on Pakistani soil by Pakistan is that it makes it very hard for India to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike on Pakistani soil, since a country has every right to use all possible means to destroy invaders. Were Pakistan to use tactical nukes on Indian soil, then that would be a different situation.
But using your logic you could also then extend the argument and say 'how can you justify using ANY weapons against an Indian invasion if it is in response to another terror strike' - that is an absurd argument. The State of Pakistan will not be responsible or complicit in any terror strike in India, so why should we not retaliate against an illegal and unjustified invasion of Pakistani territory with any and all means necessary?I don't know how you can 'justify' using nukes against an Indian invasion if its in response to another terror strike (as I cant think any other situation in which India intiates operations) as India can essentially argue that the 'terror' strike is in itself an act of war and it is only retaliating.
Does not matter what your doctrine states - understand what will happen and the implications of an Indian nuclear strike on Pakistani territory.But anyhow all these does not matter as the declared Indian NFU is quite clear in this regard --- Nasr or Shaheen --- 0.5 kT or 500 kT --- Indian soil or Pakistani soil --- an usage of nuke against Indian assets (read Army,City.....) will be treated as a Nuclear First Attack on India and the response will be according to our doctrine - massive and disproportionate.
India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
The whole point of deploying and potentially using tactical nukes on Pakistani soil by Pakistan is that it makes it very hard for India to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike on Pakistani soil, since a country has every right to use all possible means to destroy invaders. Were Pakistan to use tactical nukes on Indian soil, then that would be a different situation.
Because it will then be India that is taking the first step of escalating into full fledged nuclear war by attacking Pakistani territory with nuclear weapons. There is simply no parallel between a nation using any weapons necessary on its own soil to defend against invasion and a nation attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.The argument works both ways. How can Pakistan be sure of the type of reaction that India may have to the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" even if it is carried out on Pakistani soil.
Indian use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan soil, without a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian soil, would mean India does not have a NFU policy, and India would be responsible for escalating into full fledged nuclear war.Wouldn't Pakistan be thinking long & hard before doing something that might invite complete annihilation if they guessed wrong? India might not see the use of a tactical nuclear weapon as a one off & might retaliate immediately with a massive strike.
Pakistan would be prepared for an Indian nuclear first strike on Pakistani territory with missiles deployed. Indian missile launches will be detected and responded to. India does not have the capability (not even close) at the moment to obliterate Pakistan or destroy anywhere close to all of its nuclear assets. India will suffer from a retaliatory nuclear strike on its soil if it chooses to launch nukes at Pakistan.Whether or not enough of Pakistani second strike capabilities remain in place after the Indian strike, Pakistan might have essentially been destroyed. Whether or not India too is devastated, Pakistan would have paid a heavy price for her rash decisions.
Actually in this scenario it is more a case of Indians thinking Pakistan will 'act with discretion' in the face of an Indian invasion and not use any and all means at its disposal to destroy the invaders. Again, another nation cannot dictate what means Pakistan uses to attack an invader on its soil, otherwise you'll end up limiting us to using 'sticks and stones'.I'm always surprised that Pakistani members assume that India will always act with discretion on the nuclear front while they continue to insist that they will somehow behave like crazies with their bomb & get away with it.
I'm always surprised that Pakistani members assume that India will always act with discretion on the nuclear front while they continue to insist that they will somehow behave like crazies with their bomb & get away with it.
Battle of Chawinda --- a few Pakistani jawans, who were very modestly equipped, strapped dynamite to their chests and blew up indian tanks to smithereens killing the crew inside. A similar fate would meet a vast majority of the other invading armoured columns.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
Suicide is never termed Sacrifice.... A Soldier is entitled to give life, but he is never trained to give it up so easily.... Kamikaze Tactic....I am sorry If I sound negative, you can Reason it for me...
Because it will then be India that is taking the first step of escalating into full fledged nuclear war by attacking Pakistani territory with nuclear weapons. There is simply no parallel between a nation using any weapons necessary on its own soil to defend against invasion and a nation attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.
Indian use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan soil, without a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian soil, would mean India does not have a NFU policy, and India would be responsible for escalating into full fledged nuclear war.
India cannot set conditions for the type of response Pakistan can employ on its own soil in response to an India invasion. If that were the case, then what is to stop India from threatening to use nukes if its IBG's are destroyed by conventional weapons? Pakistan's objective will be the same whether it restricts itself to conventional or unconventional weapons - destroy the Indian IBG's and their supply lines inside Pakistani territory. India cannot dictate what we use on our own soil.
Pakistan would be prepared for an Indian nuclear first strike on Pakistani territory with missiles deployed. Indian missile launches will be detected and responded to. India does not have the capability (not even close) at the moment to obliterate Pakistan or destroy anywhere close to all of its nuclear assets. India will suffer from a retaliatory nuclear strike on its soil if it chooses to launch nukes at Pakistan.
Actually in this scenario it is more a case of Indians thinking Pakistan will 'act with discretion' in the face of an Indian invasion and not use any and all means at its disposal to destroy the invaders. Again, another nation cannot dictate what means Pakistan uses to attack an invader on its soil, otherwise you'll end up limiting us to using 'sticks and stones'.
for the sake of protecting the sacred soil, any employable tactic is justified. I fundamentally disagree with you.
they are heros -- and the fact that they helped turn the battle in Pakistani favour is a testament to that. We digress, but the point of my post was that indian through past and ongoing events would be aware that we are willing to go through great lengths -- ANY length -- for the defence of our sacred land against the enemy. A soldier isn't worth his blood and salt otherwise. And every soldier in Pakistan is always ready and prepared for war at any time.
So do you believe these online Indians over the Indian Military ?
I would not.
Battle of Chawinda --- a few Pakistani jawans, who were very modestly equipped, strapped dynamite to their chests and blew up indian tanks to smithereens killing the crew inside. Those who weren't killed were taken POWs. A similar fate would meet a vast majority of the other invading armoured columns.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
f
p.s. those tamil rebels you indians supported were experts at kamikaze attacks, no?