krash
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
I have one question:
Suppose, in a highly hypothetical scenario, an Indian IBG crosses the border into Pakistan and captures territory, and then Pakistan retaliates with a tactical nuke attack on the IBG, within Pakistani territory. Can India justify using a retaliatory nuke attack on Pakistan? It is improbable that this can be justified, since Pakistan has used tactical nuke on it's own territory.
Its not about the justification.....In times of war justification takes the farthest back seat. The issue is that the IA has devised the concept of CS particularly so as to avoid a strategic nuclear confrontation i.e. Move in fast, hold max land before the nuclear threshold is reached and before the international community intervenes then let the international pressure stop the on going hostilities and then use the land captured as a major chip in the negotiations post hostilities. That is the reason which actually makes the NASR come into play. Firstly it sends a message to the IA: You think you can avoid nukes flying by using the CS doctrine? Well think again..... Secondly and more importantly: You send your IBGs we will destroy them using tac nukes. Now that your CS has been dealt with lets see what you do next....Your thinking about using strategic nukes??? But isnt that exactly why you came up with the concept of CS so as not to reach a stage where strategic nukes are used? So what will you do now?
ps: One confusion that I think I might be able to help with here is that one cant load up a Shaheen with a low yield nuke and use it on armored columns. That missile does not work that way. For that you need a smaller missile capable of carrying tac nukes (lower yield and smaller sized warheads specifically designed for this kind of usage). And as far as the question of targeting moving columns is concerned well dont the guided MLRS projectiles do exactly that?
Well thats exactly the point. Thats nuclear deterrence working quite well even on paper.Nuke this and nuke that.
All discussions go down the drain when you guys start picturing in the unthinkable.
For the discussion to remain logical, it has to be kept conventional. If its about nukes, I nuke you and you nuke me and its ALL OVER.
India has no intentions of dismembering Pakistan or for that matter any other state.
Nothing will happen if there is no 26/11 and like attacks. If it does, India will not hesitate to take military action. Now I am interested in discussing Pakistan's conventional response, but if you guys start threatening TNW's from the very beginning then there is nothing really to talk.
You ppl need to understand your country's doctrines in more detail.
Nukes (incl TNW's) are a last resort, they have to figure when there is no other option.
Just one point for the thing in bold.
There is/was one more thread running titled "Stupidity goes nuclear" in which a Pakistani viewpoint in Nasr is presented.
It made one important point --> Why would India not raise the bar of the war if its IBG's are hit by a TNW ?
Usage of TNW will depend on your perception of what India is capable of doing.
If you think India will keep quiet even if its troops get hit by TNW the Nasr is your perfect weapon.
If you think India will retaliate in a disproportionate manner if its troops get hit by a TNW, then using Nasr will lead to to a path of no return.
Your choice!
You are still missing the point. It is the IA which wants to avoid a nuclear confrontation through its CS doctrine. CS IS so as to avoid exactly that! Before CS it was: IA attacks if all goes to hell PA will nuke India. Then came the CS: IA will punish PA while staying clear of the nuclear threshold. Now with NASR: IA cannot avoid the nuclear threshold even with CS. And what you have said is exactly the message the PA would want to send i.e. You envisage CS to avoid a nuclear war.....but now with NASR you again cannot not avoid it. Hence if the IA does want a nuclear war then it will not want tac nukes flying from the PA side and for that to happen it will be vary of using its IBGs.
TNW's eroded the credibility of pak strategic deterrence.Something went very wrong with the yields at chagai hills and the plutonium based nukes supposedly uranium based nukes.Thrs warrants sesious grey matter
LOL that fell way too short of a sensible/knowledgeable post..... Apparently you dont know that tac nukes come after strategic nukes i.e. in the evolution of nuclear weapons strategic nukes come before tac nukes on the timeline.