India’s nuclear logic

[danger007]

Moral of the story is "India is Frightened by NASR"

what is the range os NASR? do you think, PA can get away by firing an Nuke.... you guys don't have capability so, keep talking about nuke... lol

Let me put hypothetical Question What will india do if pakistan Attack with massive Nuclear weapons and take out our Communication and command centre ,power grid,ports and destoyed city.

Strategic force if survive How they will access the situation and how they will retaliate and under who's command ,will they have the nuclear code to activate nuclear device .

they don't have dare to attack with massive Nukes... neither they don't have such fire power....

 

[IND151]

Interesting article

 

[RazorMC]

yup, under Gaddafi/Saddam they were not getting raped, they were not been hit bullets having depleted uranium. Take a look on below pics after Iraq war. Now you can understand what I mean:
...

Saddam's and Gaddafi's iron-fists and self-serving ambitions would have affected the social system to an extent where people would have eventually risen up against them and similar things would have come about anyways. Not the radiation, but the chaos we see today would have become reality later on anyways.

 

[The Deterrent]

So what's the alternative. Commit suicide immediately?

Nope, just threaten to start guaranteed mutual annihilation if provoked, with concrete preparations.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Nope, just threaten to start guaranteed mutual annihilation if provoked, with concrete preparations.

I am not with you on that. How efficacious will the threat be? The very fact that the Nukes are in posession and there is NO-NFU Policy is threat enough (for whatever its worth). How does one threaten MORE than that?

 

[The Deterrent]

I am not with you on that. How efficacious will the threat be? The very fact that the Nukes are in posession and there is NO-NFU Policy is threat enough (for whatever its worth). How does one threaten MORE than that?

No, that is totally not enough for a REAL threat. Both Pakistan and India do not maintain credible enough nuclear weapons launch capability in the face of a first strike. That is something that insane military strategists could gamble on.

In my opinion, nuclear threatening is a gradual process (recall the recent North Korean moves, thought they were immature).
It could start off by making verbal threats, then having missile launch preparation drills, moving on to live firing exercises. Then start mobilizing most of the weapons for assembling, having a dozen missiles ready to fire within several hours of receiving orders. Finally preparing a few dozen missiles for launch within half an hour and giving the world something to see.
When the enemy realizes the certainty of consequences, it backs off. Now it depends on the enemy, that which threat is real enough for it.

 

[ghauri05]

Ha.. Dont be proud of wepon which can kill millions of people.. India is not at all afraid of you.. In fact you people know that you can not match us in conventional war your army has no such capabilities so you R devoloping such wepons and telling us if you start war we will use it.. Go ahead.. And bye bye forever.. You will not be there to see the consequences.
Stop trolling please. This is Pakistan defends forum and you yourself doesn't know the capability of Pakistani forces.. Lol

You may have heard of Guerilla war . A strategy used when your enemy is strong economically,militarily and resourcefully.
But Guerilla war do damage and win against the so called "Mighty Power".Afghan war history is an example for you.
The point is India is ahead of Pakistan in both resources and economy. And we know we can never match India's conventional strength in NUMBER and we dont have to. That is why we are building these nukes and they are called "Our Deterrent Capability against India". And one thing you said correct being a Pakistani I dont know Pakistan's capability as much as Indians do. That's why Indians have concerns and are afraid of our capabilities. If you still think that Pakistan does not has the capability to Nuke India. Then keep living in fool's paradise.
And the other point is not that if Pakistan fire a nuke then Pak cant get away. The point is IF India attacks Pak then India CANT get away.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

No, that is totally not enough for a REAL threat. Both Pakistan and India do not maintain credible enough nuclear weapons launch capability in the face of a first strike. That is something that insane military strategists could gamble on.

In my opinion, nuclear threatening is a gradual process (recall the recent North Korean moves, thought they were immature).
It could start off by making verbal threats, then having missile launch preparation drills, moving on to live firing exercises. Then start mobilizing most of the weapons for assembling, having a dozen missiles ready to fire within several hours of receiving orders. Finally preparing a few dozen missiles for launch within half an hour and giving the world something to see.
When the enemy realizes the certainty of consequences, it backs off. Now it depends on the enemy, that which threat is real enough for it.

Though I would hardly hold up the North Korean episode as an exemplar in this regard ; all those moves that you described have been well-factored into Military Strategy already. So what is really radically new?

 

[Mitro]

Because of Pakistan First Nuclear strike Policy they have advantage over us .As soon as war start between India and pakistan both will ready their Nuke and their strategic missile forces will be on ready to strike in 10 - 15 minutes .suppose if Pakistan is in verge od defeat or one of its arms forces like PA,Paf or Navyis completely destroy they don't have any other choice but to use their nukes.
Because Pakistan is very small in front of our country geographically speaking they will make sure to make their First strike their last strike we cannot Assume all ballistic missile is nuclear so we have a disadvantage and in that confusion they can take down over communication and command centre,power grid and target big city.
question is the worst case scenario so Mr intelligent please answer the hypothetical question or Shut the Fcuk up and please upload the video of how you do Mental mastubation i love to do it

Your query inherently assumes that all indians will be sleeping tight and wake up one fine morning to realize that every communication system and all military are gone ? Is that the premise you want to start with ? In that case i wont break your mental masturbation !

Thats why i am putting a hypothetical question in worst case scenario

they don't have dare to attack with massive Nukes... neither they don't have such fire power....

 

[The Deterrent]

Though I would hardly hold up the North Korean episode as an exemplar in this regard ; all those moves that you described have been well-factored into Military Strategy already. So what is really radically new?

Haha of course
No no, my point was the concreteness of the nuclear threat. The more realistic and grave it is, the lesser the chance of a war. Mere verbal claims are not enough..if the enemy doesn't have solid intel that you are indeed preparing for a nuclear strike, it will definitely keep pushing.

 

[Invincible INDIAN]

Saddam's and Gaddafi's iron-fists and self-serving ambitions would have affected the social system to an extent where people would have eventually risen up against them and similar things would have come about anyways. Not the radiation, but the chaos we see today would have become reality later on anyways.

AL-queda was not involved in daily bombing that we are watching today..... Enough said.. No?

 

[Bang Galore]

Nope, just threaten to start guaranteed mutual annihilation if provoked, with concrete preparations.

The entire Pakistani theory of nuclear deterrence lies in the threatening of use of nuclear weapons to deter conventional attack. That works only till the bluff is called. One then has to question the theory behind battlefield nukes. Assuming that India does not do a massive first strike(regardless of doctrine), Pakistan is hardly likely to risk committing suicide by using battlefield nukes when the guaranteed response is a massive Indian strike which will probably wipe out a substantial portion of Pakistan's nuclear assets and risk (from Pakistan's viewpoint) the theory of MAD.. It would be logical then to assume that Pakistan would not risk such a situation & would go in for a more extensive first strike. That however would have a much higher threshold (given guaranteed counter destruction) than would be thought for battlefield nukes.

Hence my point of whether Pakistan will choose lightly the option of committing "suicide".

 

[Bang Galore]

And the other point is not that if Pakistan fire a nuke then Pak cant get away. The point is IF India attacks Pak then India CANT get away.

India has both the conventional option as well as the nuclear option. There are a range of sub options available within the conventional area itself. It would be foolish to assume that any and all of them would result in matters going nuclear. To point out an obvious argument, Indian conventional attack will only be in response to a grave attack. If all attacks would lead to nuclear annihilation, it would be common sense that no attack takes place in India (from within Pakistan), would it not? No country, especially one with a substantial conventional & economic edge will allow the enemy to always decide on the level of escalation acceptable. If Pakistan is not deterred by Indian conventional & nuclear arms, there is no reason to surmise that India will always be deterred, no matter the level of provocation, from responding.

When the enemy realizes the certainty of consequences, it backs off. Now it depends on the enemy, that which threat is real enough for it.

Depends. As I said everything would depend on the provocation.

 

[notorious_eagle]

The entire Pakistani theory of nuclear deterrence lies in the threatening of use of nuclear weapons to deter conventional attack. That works only till the bluff is called. One then has to question the theory behind battlefield nukes. Assuming that India does not do a massive first strike(regardless of doctrine), Pakistan is hardly likely to risk committing suicide by using battlefield nukes when the guaranteed response is a massive Indian strike which will probably wipe out a substantial portion of Pakistan's nuclear assets and risk (from Pakistan's viewpoint) the theory of MAD.. It would be logical then to assume that Pakistan would not risk such a situation & would go in for a more extensive first strike. That however would have a much higher threshold (given guaranteed counter destruction) than would be thought for battlefield nukes.

Hence my point of whether Pakistan will choose lightly the option of committing "suicide".

Your analogy is flawed

If Pakistan does choose to exercise a tactical nuke on the battlefield, expect the order to go out to start assembling the strategic nukes. If Pakistan does detect the launch of Indian Strategic Nukes, expect Pakistan to unleash all its nuclear arsenal on India which is already cocked up after the firing of the tactical nuke. Instead of calling this a singular suicide, you should use the term 'mutual suicide'.

 

[deckingraj]

Your analogy is flawed

If Pakistan does choose to exercise a tactical nuke on the battlefield, expect the order to go out to start assembling the strategic nukes. If Pakistan does detect the launch of Indian Strategic Nukes, expect Pakistan to unleash all its nuclear arsenal on India which is already cocked up after the firing of the tactical nuke. Instead of calling this a singular suicide, you should use the term 'mutual suicide'.

Well you can call it mutual suicide but his point is simple...and is something that we have discussed many times...Using a tactical nuke would be a foolish step(IMHO) and Pakistan best bet would be to have a massive first strike on India....i mean what is the logic in unleashing a tactical missile and then wait to unleash all what you have when enemy has already hit you hard with a massive nuke strike?? If the region has to see a nuke strike then i would always want India to unleash all it can and as massive as it can be so that some/most of the Pak capability to hit back is decimated...this might give me a chance to save something at my end, no?? .... i mean one would atleast give herself a shot to survive even if there is nuke war on...no???