How India’s QR-SAM has poured Cold water on Pakistan’s NASR

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

No. Because I am lying.

At least your honest about it............

 

[Hellfire]

Logic also dictates that investing billions of dollars and well over a decade in expanding nuclear weapons fuel infrastructure would not occur without guaranteed fuel supplies.

Logic, AM, dictates that the adversary knows exactly what resources you have in terms of the raw material availability and sources for same.

Anyways, been a long time since I saw you active here. How have you been?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because unlike Pakistan, India has lots to loose other than blood. Don't confuse restrain with cowardice.

There is not a single war or conflict where Pakistan made any decisive victory. Stalemates and losses. Now, tell me how does "Pakistan quite clearly points to an Indian lack of capabilities"? What delusion are you going to feed me now?

It's not a question of cowardice (nowhere did I say that) - it's a question of a lack of capabilities to inflict a decisive military defeat on Pakistan, regardless of all the talk about Cold Start and 'neutralizing NASR'. Deterrence is achieved when one or both sides make the cost of a major conflict too high. In the case of India and Pakistan, that deterrence is in place, eliminating the potential of any major conflict between the two sides in the foreseeable future.

With respect to decisive victories by either side, outside of 1971, which was a unique case because of East Pakistan being isolated and separated from West Pakistan by thousands of miles of Indian territory and major internal insurrection (not repeatable with modern Pakistan), India hasn't achieved any decisive victories over Pakistan either.

India is busy uplifting its population to a better living standards, to better education and health system, towards a better world. Thats more important than answering a niggling neighbor. We dont want to mess up the growth and economy at this point of time.Our rising economy will itself create a big pool of distance which our enemies will find hard to jump over to make any concerns.

In other words, Pakistan has achieved deterrence, and continued investment in a variety of conventional and unconventional weapon systems is to ensure & maintain said deterrence.

Logic, AM, dictates that the adversary knows exactly what resources you have in terms of the raw material availability and sources for same.

Certainly, but keep in mind that there are a variety of reprocessing (of spent fuel) and other solutions available to Pakistan to obtain fuel for Plutonium based weapons, outside of mining local uranium resources.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/205928/patton-on-pakistans-u-supply/

Chashma & the new 1000MW Karachi plants are going to be supported by fuel from China, which frees up local resources and spent fuel processing for nuclear weapons.

Anyways, been a long time since I saw you active here. How have you been?

Been fine thanks, life always makes participation inconsistent.

 

[ranadd]

It's not a question of cowardice (nowhere did I say that) - it's a question of a lack of capabilities to inflict a decisive military defeat on Pakistan, regardless of all the talk about Cold Start and 'neutralizing NASR'. Deterrence is achieved when one or both sides make the cost of a major conflict too high. In the case of India and Pakistan, that deterrence is in place, eliminating the potential of any major conflict between the two sides in the foreseeable future.

With respect to decisive victories by either side, outside of 1971, which was a unique case because of East Pakistan being isolated and separated from West Pakistan by thousands of miles of Indian territory and major internal insurrection (not repeatable with modern Pakistan), India hasn't achieved any decisive victories over Pakistan either.

On Pakistan side, there is a qualitative and quantitative lack of capabilities as you said. Hence they are waging the assymetic warfare.

On Indian side there is enough edge over Pakistan, but as you said, they don’t have much to measure against. I said enough, not a lot. And no India does not have that against China. Let’s not go into the rabbit hole.

But let’s not argue about dick size. We will both be biased.

India has things to loose as India can never be seen as aggressor.

 

[Hellfire]

Been fine thanks, life always makes participation inconsistent.

Agreed - to your post (both included and not included). Quite aware

Cheers and best wishes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On Pakistan side, there is a qualitative and quantitative lack of capabilities as you said. Hence they are waging the assymetic warfare.

One could argue that lack of a decisive qualitative and quantitative capability (for India) is what has led to India waging asymmetric warfare against Pakistan via the Baloch and TTP terrorist groups. It is also why a hyper nationalistic government has had to resort to farcical claims of surgical strikes to prop up its bombastic anti-Pakistan rhetoric to save face in front of the Indian electorate.

On Indian side there is enough edge over Pakistan, but as you said, they don’t have much to measure against.

it's not enough of an edge, hence deterrence.

But let’s not argue about dick size. We will both be biased.

I wasn't - I am merely pointing out that India's qualitative and quantitative military edge is just not large enough to override deterrence.

India has things to loose as India can never be seen as aggressor.

And Pakistan has just as much to lose as India, again, why both countries are unlikely to engage in a major military conflict in the foreseeable future.

 

[ranadd]

One could argue that lack of a decisive qualitative and quantitative capability (for India) is what has led to India waging asymmetric warfare against Pakistan via the Baloch and TTP terrorist groups. It is also why a hyper nationalistic government has had to resort to farcical claims of surgical strikes to prop up its bombastic anti-Pakistan rhetoric to save face in front of the Indian electorate.

it's not enough of an edge, hence deterrence.

I wasn't - I am merely pointing out that India's qualitative and quantitative military edge is just not large enough to override deterrence.

And Pakistan has just as much to lose as India, again, why both countries are unlikely to engage in a major military conflict in the foreseeable future.

I agree most of your post. Except the Indian deference part.

Pakistan as tactical nukes and no NFU. India doesn’t. It’s because of edge India has.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree most of your post. Except the Indian deference part.

Pakistan as tactical nukes and no NFU. India doesn’t. It’s because of edge India has.

I think where we are talking past each other is that when I say 'military deterrence', I'm referring to both conventional and unconventional military capabilities as a whole. You're looking at this from a conventional vs conventional and unconventional vs unconventional, arguing that India has a substantive edge in the former and it is the latter that results in deterrence.

We're essentially making the same point.

 

[Surya 1]

"QRSAM is a highly mobile air defence system which comes with 100 percent kill probability, and has the capability to neutralise aerial targets like fighter jets, cruise missiles and air to surface missiles as well as short-range ballistic missiles. QRSAM is also a vital component in India’s “Cold Start” Doctrine which will ensure the safety of forward Army formations in Enemy territories.The Mach 1.8"


The biggest bullshit I have ever read in a mentally challenged description of a military hardware.

There is no effective weapon in existence that can kill an extremely short range missile, because the reaction time and kill off probability is totally horrible.
But then we have indians who will go ga ga over a so called QRSAM that supposedly ensures a 100 percent kill probability.
I don;t know if I should laugh or feel sorry for the indians?




LOL @ the idiot
NASR is a mini nuke carrying rocket that can blow your armored formations to shreds.
Do some research before you jump into something with a complete lack of knowledge and openly exhibit your ignorance.

Go do some research before commenting with a complete retarded version of your deluded perception of things.

You should feel sorry for Pakistan citizen who will die in Nasr nuclear attack in Pakistan.

 

[ranadd]

I think where we are talking past each other is that when I say 'military deterrence', I'm referring to both conventional and unconventional military capabilities as a whole. You're looking at this from a conventional vs conventional and unconventional vs unconventional, arguing that India has a substantive edge in the former and it is the latter that results in deterrence.

We're essentially making the same point.

You said India lacks capability for any decisive outcomes.

Pakistan understands they do not hold conventional edge over India, hence the short range delivery systems.

Still India engages in NFU and do not invest in short range delivery systems. Instead invest on BMD, IBG and “cold start”. This shows confidence or over confidence, depending on who you ask.

Tell now, how are we saying the same thing?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You said India lacks capability for any decisive outcomes.

Pakistan understands they do not hold conventional edge over India, hence the short range delivery systems.

Still India engages in NFU and do not invest in short range delivery systems. Instead invest on BMD, IBG and “cold start”. This shows confidence or over confidence, depending on who you ask.

Tell now, how are we saying the same thing?

As a whole (looking at the entire military infrastructure - conventional+unconventional/nuclear), India lacks a decisive edge to enter into a major conflict with Pakistan and emerge victorious and largely intact (Pakistan will suffer just as much). Having a deterrent is about discouraging the other party from entering into a conflict because the other party will suffer significant enough losses to overshadow any potential gains from said military conflict.

Pakistan has achieved that deterrence for the following:

1. Full scale war: A combination of conventional and un-conventional (nuclear) capabilities
2. Small scale conflict: Pakistan has enough conventional capabilities that India cannot do another Siachen or Pakistan version of Kargil because to do so would result in escalation (see point one).

Now whatever spin you want to put on India's inability to escalate a military conflict with Pakistan, despite a plethora of hysterical, war mongering statements from the BJP government and Indian military, the fact is that India lacks the capabilities for a decisive victory over Pakistan without suffering horrible losses herself. Those potential losses are, at the moment, too significant to justify any kind of military conflict with Pakistan - deterrence.

 

[HttpError]

But Indians never accepted the existence of cold start doctrine. Moreover, they were never really concerned about NASR's capabilities, then why bother creating countermeasures?

 

[Osiris]

As a whole (looking at the entire military infrastructure - conventional+unconventional/nuclear), India lacks a decisive edge to enter into a major conflict with Pakistan and emerge victorious and largely intact (Pakistan will suffer just as much). Having a deterrent is about discouraging the other party from entering into a conflict because the other party will suffer significant enough losses to overshadow any potential gains from said military conflict.

Pakistan has achieved that deterrence for the following:

1. Full scale war: A combination of conventional and un-conventional (nuclear) capabilities
2. Small scale conflict: Pakistan has enough conventional capabilities that India cannot do another Siachen or Pakistan version of Kargil because to do so would result in escalation (see point one).

Now whatever spin you want to put on India's inability to escalate a military conflict with Pakistan, despite a plethora of hysterical, war mongering statements from the BJP government and Indian military, the fact is that India lacks the capabilities for a decisive victory over Pakistan without suffering horrible losses herself. Those potential losses are, at the moment, too significant to justify any kind of military conflict with Pakistan - deterrence.

That is what Cold start doctrine is all about, act fast and punish the enemy. Capture a small amount of area before enemy can mobilize, but stay well below nuclear threshold, where Pakistanis would feel, it is end of line for their country, so might as well drag India down with it.

Believe it or not Pakistan too fears escalation of war to a level, from which there is no return. An example of that was, Indian surgical strikes across the LOC. Though such strikes, albeit on a smaller scale have been going on for decades by both sides, but they were hush hush.

But this is the first time, India openly accepted and celebrated strikes across the LOC. This put, Pakistan leadership in a dilemma, if they accepted that India had struck across the LOC, they would have had, no option, but to escalate. That is something they could not afford at this time. Hence they chose to deny the entire thing.

Otherwise it is hard find examples in history, where a nation openly claims, that we entered your country and killed your countrymen, but the other nation says, no no nothing like that happened, hence we do not need respond.
Usually nations, who are as bitter enemies as India and Pakistan, leap at smallest excuse to attack the other country, even go so as far as to create false flag attacks in their own countries for an excuse to attack the enemy.

 

[Arsalan 345]

you have a presumption that india won't use its ballistic missiles ,cruise missiles and rocket artillery before the so called ibg

IAF is a weakness is a biased statement

no no no i mean in case if they failed to support ibgs.air superiority is necessary for indian troops.

Um, we have more of these guns and missiles than you do and you have less number of troops than we do. Don't you think you will be worse affected?

i think you have everything more since the beginning.i think we know that you have more men,more weapons but again defending is always easy as compared to attacking.i still feel that we have counter to this doctrine.may be we hide our own doctrine but god knows better.i hope for truce,not for war but as a country,we love our independence and i know there are lots of people working hard just to make sure that we don't left behind when it comes to weapons.there are ongoing projects.army is in great shape and more troops will come near loc after american withdrawal of afghanistan.i believe that we can repel any attack but economic situation favors india.

 

[Osiris]

no no no i mean in case if they failed to support ibgs.air superiority is necessary for indian troops.



i think you have everything more since the beginning.i think we know that you have more men,more weapons but again defending is always easy as compared to attacking.i still feel that we have counter to this doctrine.may be we hide our own doctrine but god knows better.i hope for truce,not for war but as a country,we love our independence and i know there are lots of people working hard just to make sure that we don't left behind when it comes to weapons.there are ongoing projects.army is in great shape and more troops will come near loc after american withdrawal of afghanistan.i believe that we can repel any attack but economic situation favors india.

Qucik mobilization, and quick capture of enemy area, before the enemy can mobilize(which is what cold start is), means, it will be India, which will be defending and Pakistan, which will be attacking to recapture the areas lost, once its own army has mobilized.