Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
How is this relevant as long as nuclear weapons of both Pakistan and India ensure MAD.
20 kiloton fission bombs can't ensure MAD. They can ensure the destruction of a few city blocks, which is very significant but not enough to ensure MAD against a medium-sized country (or larger).
Thermonuclear weapons (for example a regular Chinese nuke is around 4 megatons) are what are needed to ensure MAD.
And since it is claimed that we handed over nuclear weapons designs to Pakistan, and even tested weapons on their behalf, it seems reasonable to say they could have tested-and-true thermonuclear weapons. That's in addition to them already having a much larger nuclear arsenal than India does.
Which are both quite enormous advantages for Pakistan. Not to mention their ENTIRE arsenal is meant for India, they don't have to hold back half their arsenal like India would have to do (as deterrence against China rolling down the Himalayas after the dust has settled).
Apologies accepted!
Nasr was designed on the same basis of Tactical nuclear weapons for NATO, to counter Soviet conventional military superiority. I.e If Indian military enters deep inside Pakistani territory and PA is unable to stop them. However the same would result in full scale nuclear response by India.
LOL you guys can't understand, that is EXACTLY the point.
What else do you infer from a "lowering of the nuclear threshold"? Lowering the nuclear threshold with platforms like Nasr means that an escalation to a nuclear war is much more likely. That's the point. The intent is to deter adversaries from any conventional attack, like the one in the OP. To make them realize a conventional attack can quickly escalate into a full-blown nuclear war, which was my point since the beginning of this thread, and which you are unable to understand.
Last edited: