NASR: A Disadvantage for Pakistan

[Andross]

Then implement Cold start and see if NASR is used. The ball is in your court.

Cold start does not exist it was only on paper and we do not wish to see a war with anyone in the region that is until at least 2015/8 when our missile defence becomes mature

 

[Andross]

WikiLeaks: India's Cold Start mix of myth, reality

WikiLeaks: India's Cold Start mix of myth, reality - Documents News - IBNLive

 

[Kinetic]

@ Praveen007

Tests and induction are completely separate things, India has tested a lot of ballistic missiles but only the 150 km Prithvi missile (if i am not wrong) is operational.

Which means if the war breaks out today, India can't rely on its missiles to strike Pakistan's cities.

You did not read a news since 1999? lol

Agni-3 with 3500 km range an 1.5 ton payload opearational.

 

[pmukherjee]

As has been argued by Rodney Jones, Pakistan need not resort to the nuclear option to counter India’s Cold Start doctrine since the results of the Azm-e-Nau III military exercises held in 2009-10 suggest that its conventional defences alone are fully capable of resisting a shallow penetration as envisaged by the Cold Start doctrine.

Let us examine this highlighted statement.
Successful conduct of a defensive battle hinges upon appropriate and timely use of reserves. Since reserves are never enough and always at a premium, the best way to counter this is to attack at multiple points all along the front. Multiple attacks in conjunction with diversions and feints render reserves useless and force the defender to commit them piecemeal thereby ensuring their piecemeal destruction. Yes, the defender will be able to cause sufficient attrition to the attacker at a number of places where effective use of reserves is made and mire down the attacker but it will also mean that at a number of other points, the attacker will be able to penetrate the defences and draw the Pakistan Army Reserves into battle. All this even before the IA Strike Corps are launched. This will be nothing short of catastrophic for the PA. Shallow penetrations at a number of places will do the trick as many of Pakistan's vital installations, population centers, communication networks including highways and railway networks are but a few kilometers from the IB.
Pakistan has no answer to this. It is no wonder therefore, that the NASR has been inducted.

What is the NASR al about?
The NASR is a desperate attempt to check Indian advance into Pakistan by nuking the Indian spearheads well inside Pakistani territory. It is desperate because the primary damage by these tactical weapons will be to Pakistani population and infrastructure. Fallout will effect more Pakistanis. This is true for all places along the IB except for the desert sector. Moreover, the standard dispersion resorted to by mechanised forces in the process of breaking out will minimise the damage to the IA.Maybe, the leading Combat team or part thereof will bear the brunt of the NASR attack but the remainder combat group/combat command will be by and large left unscathed thereby leaving it freeto proceed to intermediate/terminal objectives. But the damage to Pakistan itself will be incalculable, The green belt on both sides extend right up to the IB.
So, whereas, the use of NASR will in no way guarantee the desired results, it will leave Pakistan open to massive Indian retaliation as dictated by our nuclear doctrine. This will, in turn cause Pakistan to retaliate with strategic assets and so on thereby ultimately devastating both countries and much of South Asia. While India will be devastated, but Pakistan will definitely be obliterated totally.
The question therefore is, does Pakistan wish to risk devastation and possibly obliteration just to give support to a few terrorists planning to cause mayhem in India? I think not.

 

[Mani2020]

All the writer has said in his article is that Pakistan can do it with conventional weapons rather then developing Nasr and other nuclear capable missile but where are the dis-advantages of NASR?

 

[The Deterrent]

Totally useless thread on a biased article...

Pakistan Army succeeded in convincing the Indians that we can nuke your troops...Majority Indian members here (Pakistani too) see Nasr as a nuclear weapon only...But,it is a very effective conventional weapon too,with 4 launch tubes in the ultimate design.

Cold Start or no cold start.Indian military definitely has a plan of agression,in case things get worse ( e.g. Another Mumbai)...By testing Nasr,Pakistan has made a clear point...that do not take Pakistan for Afghanistan or Iraq...

The same nuclear warhead (deliverable by Nasr) can also be delivered by Abdali or Ghaznavi...but we had to give a strong message.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

Stop trolling...and keep China-Pak friendship,Kashmir etc out of this thread...Are the Mods/Admins sleeping?

 

[Xracer]

What THA Faaaaaaaaaa

Reshmi Kazi

August 19, 2011

On April 19, 2011, Pakistan successfully fired the NASR short-range surface-to-surface multi-tube ballistic missile. The nuclear-capable missile from the family of Hatf-IX missiles with a purported range of 60 km has high accuracy and a shoot and scoot delivery system. According to the Director General of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Divions, Khalid Kidwai, the NASR will provide Pakistan with short-range missile capability. NASR is believed to be a battlefield deterrent, capable of inflicting damage on mechanized forces such as armoured brigades and divisions. This quick response system is expected to deter evolving threats and will provide battlefield support for the Pakistan Army.

The development of the NASR raises several questions. Firstly, does Pakistan require operational Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) for battlefield purposes? The rationale offered by Pakistani analysts for developing the NASR is that it is a counter to India’s Cold Start doctrine and is meant to deter any Indian mechanized offensive into Pakistan. The general opinion is that India will launch an offensive surgical attack into Pakistani territory by virtue of its Cold Start doctrine. Pakistan believes that given its inferior conventional capability vis-à-vis India, tactical nuclear capability will serve to deter an Indian riposte to any Pakistani misadventure like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

But this is a fallacious assumption. India’s Cold Start doctrine has been devised because of Pakistan’s proxy operations against India at the sub-conventional level and because of the concern that retaliatory strikes against Pakistan may escalate into a full-fledged war. In any event, the Indian military strategy is not to dismember Pakistan but to have a stable neighbour and to foster a beneficial relationship at all levels. Nor does India favour initiating surgical attacks against Pakistan without grave provocation. Further, India is acutely aware of the risk of escalation from sub-conventional to conventional and nuclear levels, and is therefore unlikely to embark upon a senseless war. The Cold Start has been devised precisely with this aspect in mind.

Pakistan can actually discourage India’s Cold Start doctrine in two ways: by giving up its covert sub-conventional operations against India, or by formulating a prudent strategy to counter India’s proactive tactics. As has been argued by Rodney Jones, Pakistan need not resort to the nuclear option to counter India’s Cold Start doctrine since the results of the Azm-e-Nau III military exercises held in 2009-10 suggest that its conventional defences alone are fully capable of resisting a shallow penetration as envisaged by the Cold Start doctrine.1

Secondly, does Pakistan’s development of battlefield nuclear weapons erode India’s no-first-use (NFU) policy? It is a contentious idea that the use of TNWs will not escalate into a full fledged nuclear war. It is irrelevant whether a target has been hit by a strategic or tactical weapon. A nuclear attack is a nuclear attack. To quote Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik, “Tactical or strategic, it (NASR) is a nuclear weapon. Our response would be absolutely violent, if it is used, as per our existing policy. So, it's not a game-changer.” What this essentially means is that in the event India faces a nuclear attack, New Delhi will be left with no other choice but to use nuclear weapons in the form of a massive retaliation. In that case it makes little sense whether a strategic or tactical nuclear weapon or a long range or short range weapon is used, since the general response would be to carry out a punitive attack on the adversary.

There is no universal definition of TNWs and hence it is difficult to categorize them. They cannot be defined either by their range or yield. Notwithstanding their battlefield utility, TNWs can lead to uncontrolled escalation given their inherent tendency to obscure the decision-making process thus creating confusion and leading local commanders with pre-delegated authority to use them. Further, there is a risk that they could be grabbed by terrorist groups.

Although by definition TNWs are meant for employment against counterforce targets, they can also be potentially used for countervalue strikes. The moment a nuclear weapon whether tactical or strategic is used the deterrent factor suffers a failure. Thus, Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence against India will fail if it launches TNWs. Moreover, given the geographical proximity with India any detonation of TNWs by Pakistan will have radiation fallouts on the territories of both countries. Pakistan could thus find itself in a situation where it would be self-deterred. Considering the pros and cons of TNWs like NASR, it does not pose any advantage to Pakistan; it only creates disadvantages.

NASR: A Disadvantage for Pakistan | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

 

[araz]

What is the sense of these stupid debates. Nukes have in fact insured there is no war in the region. However, unfortunately the 2 states have not come out of "Mine is bigger than yours contest". No one in India or Pakistan is stupid enough to tempt an escalation and ensure MAD scenario. Pakistan is likely to be destroyed totally and India thrown back into the stone ages. Now if you guys want that then dream on. All that I am glad to note is that we have people at the top who although make Gung Ho speeches know better than to embark on a stupid venture. Gentlemen, the time is Now upon us all where we see reason and embark and pressurize our Governments to embark on a policy of reconciliation and resolution of all outstanding issues, Including Kashmir and the water issues, and try and develop Confidence Building Measures, including mutual trade and free travel for the residents of the 2 nations. This is a far better option than calling each other the enemy and building armaments that will probably never see the light of the day.
Araz

 

[ziaulislam]

very country has right to use a nuclear device on its own soil.
if Pakistan under worse case scenrio uses a nuclear device (less than 1kt on its own soil causing some thousand fatalities with substantial collateral damage)..
would india respond with same small scale device on spread army (obviously made thin due to indian troops movement). there wouldnt be a viable target there india would have to either do nothing or target a city

if they do target a city (causing atleast million causalities it would be considered a first strike and Pakistan will repsond with targeting a city..in history it would go as india being the first one using a nuclear device..

indians are welcomed to use a nuclear device on its own soil anytime, as do we have the right..
this concept isnt new NATO used against USSR for 4 decades to counter the overwhelming tanks forces..but it is last resort

india is holding a un plausible concept that ISI is involved in all its problems instead of knowing fact that islamic militants can attck anywhere and they have doing that in Pakistan for long time

anyway it wouldnt be terrorism the reason india attacks us. if india see Pakistan weak enough it would without any doubt attacks us without any provocation to take the northern areas and kashmir along with water resources which it claims to belong to her, its simply a lesson from history and history does repeat itself.

 

[SEAL]

"NASR" big advantage for Pak.

 

[SBD-3]

I dont understand why analysts have been exclusively linking NASR with Cold start....Its a shoot and scoot tactical balistic missile, its absolutely valuable even with a conventional warhead as its would be an absolute death for adversary where the movement is slow or difficult, Mountains, Deserts, Marshes...its CEP should also be excptionally low due to optical seeker being employed (AFAIK). Fire a volley and run for rearming....it can readily dilute the adversary strength and will also serve as an effective deterrent to concentrated attacks and erode the potential of numerical superiority....

 

[Last Hope]

As I posted earlier, Nasr is not what it is.
It is classified for citizens.

Sir, this 60KM missile is being scaring the people on our East. The reasons:

• Easy and undetected transportation.
• Speed and accuracy in hitting the target.
• Quick reaction.
• Its tactical yield.
• Its vertical launch.

(3 more points, classifieds for citizens)

 

[The Deterrent]

I dont understand why analysts have been exclusively linking NASR with Cold start....Its a shoot and scoot tactical balistic missile, its absolutely valuable even with a conventional warhead as its would be an absolute death for adversary where the movement is slow or difficult, Mountains, Deserts, Marshes...its CEP should also be excptionally low due to optical seeker being employed (AFAIK). Fire a volley and run for rearming....it can readily dilute the adversary strength and will also serve as an effective deterrent to concentrated attacks and erode the potential of numerical superiority....

Bro can you elaborate a little more on the seeker being employed?

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Cold start does not exist it was only on paper

Even if it was it is dead now.Nip the evil in the bud they say.

 

[monitor]

Well the research on the basis of what the out come of a tactical nuclear missile would be on Pakistan and so the conclusion is it may be disadvantage . but what i think this missile main goal is to give the chance to use a less destructive nuclear power in battle field so that strategic warhead don't need to use as it will destroy both country . but when one country will attack will attack with a tactical warhead other will not get any excuse to use the strategic warhead which would me more destructive . so it neither advantage nor disadvantage as India too has a missile like this.