What's new

Hatf-IX - Tactical Multi-Tube Ballistic Missile

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?

The State of Pakistan as you define is comprised of it's citizens who also sometimes double up as Non-State Actors. It is anybody's guess who is responsible for actions by Pakistani nationals planning inside Pakistan and executing that in India.

Again, the weapons will be used on Pakistani soil, the radiation, fallout and after effects will be primarily Pakistan's problem - for India to respond in kind by launching nukes at Pakistan will be a major, major escalation in terms of using nukes against another nation's territory, and will escalate into full fledged nuclear war with Pakistan then launching nukes at Indian cities and military targets. Indian planners will have to think long and hard about taking the first step of attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.

Does not matter what your doctrine states - understand what will happen and the implications of an Indian nuclear strike on Pakistani territory.

I've already said that our NFU is clear in this regard - Indian soil or Pakistani soil -- Tac nuke or a high yield one everything will be seen though the same lens as Nuclear First Strike on Indian assets and the retaliatory strike will be to the fullest.

Ofcourse we know Pakistan will retaliate, but NFU takes that into account and aims at inflicting the maximum damage in its first attempt an also that is why we are investing in something called BMD.
 
.
p.s. those tamil rebels you indians supported were experts at kamikaze attacks, no?

We supported Tamil rebels once for a cause. But we never supported Kamikaze type of attacks. Indians apparently withdrew support to LTTE when they turned rogue. After all, we're victim of their suicide tactics. Read about IPKF war against LTTE and Rajiv assassination.
 
.
We supported Tamil rebels once for a cause. But we never supported Kamikaze type of attacks. Indians apparently withdrew support to LTTE when they turned rogue. After all, we're victim of their suicide tactics. Read about IPKF war against LTTE and Rajiv assassination.

You think he doesn't know that ?
 
.
The State of Pakistan as you define is comprised of it's citizens who also sometimes double up as Non-State Actors. It is anybody's guess who is responsible for actions by Pakistani nationals planning inside Pakistan and executing that in India.
That is irrelevant to the argument - regardless of who India thinks is guilty, the State of Pakistan's position will be the same as it is now, and India will have no compelling evidence to indicate Pakistani State complicity, just as it does not have any evidence now. And since India will have no compelling case, it will have no justification for war, and even if it claims justification, Pakistan is under no obligation under any international law to not retaliate to an invasion of its territory as it sees fit. India cannot dictate how we respond to aggression and invasion of Pakistan.
I've already said that our NFU is clear in this regard - Indian soil or Pakistani soil -- Tac nuke or a high yield one everything will be seen though the same lens as Nuclear First Strike on Indian assets and the retaliatory strike will be to the fullest.
And as I said, it does not matter what you state your NFU to be - launching nukes against another nation's territory is a huge escalation of the war and an initiation of a full fledged nuclear exchange. Regardless of the rhetoric around your NFU, India's leadership will be hard pressed to be the first to launch nukes at Pakistan and invite a nuclear holocaust over the Pakistani use of tactical nukes on its own soil against invading forces.
Ofcourse we know Pakistan will retaliate, but NFU takes that into account and aims at inflicting the maximum damage in its first attempt an also that is why we are investing in something called BMD.
You can 'aim' at inflicting maximum damage, but the fact is that India simply does not have the capability to do anything like 'obliterate Pakistan'. India does not have the numbers nor does it have the yields of nuclear weapons to do what you claim (neither does Pakistan for that matter). Pakistan will survive an Indian first, second and third nuclear strike, and retaliate with each one. Given our larger arsenal, and India's population density, India will suffer more damage. Neither country will be destroyed, though millions (perhaps tens of millions) will die.

Therefore your decision makers are extremely unlikely to retaliate to a defensive use of tactical nukes by Pakistan on Pakistani soil with a nuclear strike on Pakistani soil and invite the scenario painted above.

Cold Start and/or any other doctrine or strategy based around occupation of Pakistani territory by Indian troops is 'dead as a dodo', and that applies to a Pakistani attempt to do the same in India as well.
 
.
That is irrelevant to the argument - regardless of who India thinks is guilty, the State of Pakistan's position will be the same as it is now, and India will have no compelling evidence to indicate Pakistani State complicity, just as it does not have any evidence now. And since India will have no compelling case, it will have no justification for war, and even if it claims justification, 1) Pakistan is under no obligation under any international law to not retaliate to an invasion of its territory as it sees fit. India cannot dictate how we respond to aggression and invasion of Pakistan.

And as I said, it does not matter what you state your NFU to be - launching nukes against another nation's territory is a huge escalation of the war and an initiation of a full fledged nuclear exchange. Regardless of the rhetoric around your NFU, India's leadership will be hard pressed to be the first to launch nukes at Pakistan and invite a nuclear holocaust over the Pakistani use of tactical nukes on its own soil against invading forces.

You can 'aim' at inflicting maximum damage, 2)but the fact is that India simply does not have the capability to do anything like 'obliterate Pakistan'. India does not have the numbers nor does it have the yields of nuclear weapons to do what you claim (neither does Pakistan for that matter). Pakistan will survive an Indian first, second and third nuclear strike, and retaliate with each one. Given our larger arsenal, and India's population density, India will suffer more damage. Neither country will be destroyed, though millions (perhaps tens of millions) will die.

Therefore your decision makers are extremely unlikely to retaliate to a defensive use of tactical nukes by Pakistan on Pakistani soil with a nuclear strike on Pakistani soil and invite the scenario painted above.

Cold Start and/or any other doctrine or strategy based around occupation of Pakistani territory by Indian troops is 'dead as a dodo', and that applies to a Pakistani attempt to do the same in India as well.


Just the two points since the others are just chest thumping.

1) Exactly and that holds for India too. Pakistan cannot dictate how we respond in case of usage of Tac nukes and that has been the crux of my argument against Pakistanis so far.

2) The exact numbers and the yield of Indian nukes are a closely guarde secret which is not even disclosed to Ministers and I thus I find n justification for your declaration.

But a common sense will tell that 9 (possibly more) Indian reactors are pumping our fuel for our nukes and with the Exemptions granted and Uranium starting to come from outside and huge financial resources it is anybody's guess of our ability to beef up numbers as and when required.

As for the yield - Link

A nuclear exchange with India is certain suicide for Pakistan as we know it now and India too will be severley damaged. Though not to the extent of Pakistan.
 
.
Indian Smerch with 90KM is already being over ranged by our A-100s.

Remember Indian Smerch is a MBRL system, its a rocket not a missile, and ours in comparison is the A-100, which can be increased to 120+ even to 150KM range.

Nasr is something different, its a SSM nor just a simple un-guided rocket.
I doubt what you are saying is true; provided that A-100 itself is based on Smerch!! Though its range is marginally better than ASmerch but their are other things to ponder like:
  1. 12 Smerch volleys versus 10 of A-100
  2. Smerch ability to launch UAV rockets [kind off new thing] don't know if India has it
  3. The fire control system of the Smerch, the Vivari, can function automatically or under manual control. The Vivari system is housed in a command vehicle and controls six launchers. it calculates ballistic and targeting data of each launcher. Similar can't be said [atleast I didn't find any info] about A-100
 
.
CSD is history now there is no such thing "limited war" in Indo/Pak case surgical strikes can turn small conflict into full fledge war Indians better remove their forces from Pakistan border.:sick:
 
.
Just the two points since the others are just chest thumping.
There is no chest thumping anywhere in my posts - those are the facts. If I indicated that India could not 'obliterate' Pakistan with its nukes or capture any territory, I said the same for Pakistan. If you have reason to disagree with what you call 'chest thumping' please provide the facts to refute me.
1) Exactly and that holds for India too. Pakistan cannot dictate how we respond in case of usage of Tac nukes and that has been the crux of my argument against Pakistanis so far.
Your argument is flawed since it implies that India would take the first step to initiate nuclear holocaust in the sub-continent. Pakistan's use of tactical nukes will be limited and for defensive purposes on its own soil in case of an invasion. That is not equivalent to launching nukes at another nations cities or military on that nations soil.

Look at it this way - there are only two things that can happen if Indian IBG's penetrate Pakistani territory. Either they hold that territory until Pakistani forces are defeated comprehensively (extremely unlikely even with Pakistan sticking to just conventional munitions) or the IBG's get decimated, either through conventional munitions or a combination of conventional and unconventional munitions. If the latter case happens (with tactical nukes), Pakistan will know that it can expect the same in case of an incursion into Indian territory (which would be tempting since Pakistan will have destroyed a large chunk of India's offensive formations at that point), and so will resist from doing so.

Now India is faced with a bad and worse situation.

1. (Bad situation) It can accept the destruction of its offensive formations, take solace in the fact that it made a point and inflicted a cost on Pakistan as well, and cease hostilities with a stalemate, with no offensive goals accomplished and no bargaining power over Pakistan.

2. (Worse situation) It can escalate the war into a nuclear exchange, still gain absolutely no military advantage since its own military, cities and infrastructure will come under a retaliatory Pakistani nuclear attack, suffer billions in damage, millions dead, and still end the war in a stalemate with both sides exhausted and severely damaged, and set back decades.

What advantage do you see in option 2? Or, what advantage can you see in option 2 that I have neglected?

2) The exact numbers and the yield of Indian nukes are a closely guarded secret which is not even disclosed to Ministers and I thus I find n justification for your declaration.

But a common sense will tell that 9 (possibly more) Indian reactors are pumping our fuel for our nukes and with the Exemptions granted and Uranium starting to come from outside and huge financial resources it is anybody's guess of our ability to beef up numbers as and when required.
Pakistan's actual warhead count is secret as well, yet several international organizations have come to similar conclusions about the size of their )India and Pakistan's) respective arsenals. I am going by that. At most India has a few hundred assembled warheads and missiles to carry them into Pakistan (we are not putting together legos here) - stockpiled fueled cannot be included the estimates because of the complexity of assembling the warheads and delivery systems and mating them. There won't be time for that in an India-Pakistan war.
As for the yield - Link

A nuclear exchange with India is certain suicide for Pakistan as we know it now and India too will be severley damaged. Though not to the extent of Pakistan.
The capability to do so means nothing. And even at that yield 'obliterating Pakistan' is not possible. These 'obliteration' claims are fanboy fantasies. India and Pakistan need the megaton capacity of the US and USSR, and the ability to deliver hundreds of warheads that actually detonate, to achieve 'obliteration' of the other.

BTW, it is precisely these claims of 'obliteration', that you and Bang Galore before you, have made that are 'chest thumping' and fanboy fantasies.
 
.
We supported Tamil rebels once for a cause. But we never supported Kamikaze type of attacks. Indians apparently withdrew support to LTTE when they turned rogue. After all, we're victim of their suicide tactics. Read about IPKF war against LTTE and Rajiv assassination.

I doubt the average Pakistani supports it but to tell ya the truth. Tamils did invent the idea. They implemented it even on Rajiv. So next time you see these things somewhere, do remind yourself that Indians were the ones that were first.
 
. .
Good for you. But we Indians go by Gen.Patton's words, if you know what I mean.

well as far as the battle is concerned, numbers and results speak for themselves

Chawinda became a huge graveyard for the indians and their mechanized armour; thanks to synergy between 2 services and thanks to bravery and ''unconventional'' warring tactics the numerically superior enemy was caught dead in its tracks (literally)

anywaz....



They learned it from their Syrian counterparts.

i didnt know ''Al-Sham'' also 'enjoys' a tamil population :rofl:

anyways, we shouldnt delve into tamil insurgency here; those tamils are drowned on the bottom of indian ocean and there's always more room down there for more trouble makers


regards
 
.
CSD is history now there is no such thing "limited war" in Indo/Pak case surgical strikes can turn small conflict into full fledge war Indians better remove their forces from Pakistan border.:sick:

as usual, indian will be forced to eat and swallow those words



as usual,


big boast
small roast!
 
.
@ AM, @ AZ, Gentlemen, why are you wasting your high caliber knowledge and talent on these weekend warriors.

For, I am witness as when the news of this test and pictures came through, these characters were running around like headless chickens. :lol:
The fact is that the test of NASR has made more impact than the Ghauri or Shaheen, and we all know why. ;)
Now it's just a question of gathering composure and redeeming their bewildered souls. :cheesy:
 
.
@ AM, @ AZ, Gentlemen, why are you wasting your high caliber knowledge and talent on these weekend warriors.

For, I am witness as when the news of this test and pictures came through, these characters were running around like headless chickens. :lol:
The fact is that the test of NASR has made more impact than the Ghauri or Shaheen, and we all know why. ;)
Now it's just a question of gathering composure and redeeming their bewildered souls. :cheesy:

There you go sir :yes4:

Indians,keep buying your T-90s..They are really good :tup: :lol:
 
.
We supported Tamil rebels once for a cause. But we never supported Kamikaze type of attacks. Indians apparently withdrew support to LTTE when they turned rogue. After all, we're victim of their suicide tactics. Read about IPKF war against LTTE and Rajiv assassination.

So now you Indians agree to have been involved in supporting & training terrorists in Sri Lanka.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom