NASR : SHORT RANGE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON!

[I.R.A]

I see what you did there.............................

 

[Gufi]

strategic response

escalatory ladder

What does the use of the tactical nuke by Pakistan achieve?

Oh read your own statement, stop acting like a child. Strategic response is something you really do not understand. You are mixing different things.

 

[Bang Galore]

Oh read your own statement, stop acting like a child. Strategic response is something you really do not understand. You are mixing different things.

. Move on chap. This is getting to be all hat & no cattle. I'm done here.

 

[Gufi]

. Move on chap. This is getting to be all hat & no cattle. I'm done here.

Ok now i have to waste time here explaining
Strategic response is something that is not a button that is one response but a flow chart where one thing leads to another. You can call it an escalatory ladder if you wish.
Tactical nucs are something that are used to stop armoured battalions when a main defensive line breaks because a major line break means division of the country and to stop that you stop the advancing columns in order to regroup. It is something you do to stop a massive column not to attack another country's base.Tactical nuclear weapon systems are for advancing troops and not to target the other country's building, structures, command centres etc.
While the older nuclear weapons showed retaliation, these are totally deterrent in nature. They are a clear message that there is one more step before total nuclear war.

 

[shaheenmissile]

Making small pint sized nukes has more to do with Pakistan's low capacity of fissile material production. India has far more reactors than us and makes far greater amount of fissile material, so they can make fewer but larger nukes.
On the other hand Pakistan only produces small quantity of fissile material at any given time and makes a small warhead of whatever is available.
Thats why our number of nuclear warheads is increasing fast,but our total yeild in megatons is smaller than India As they have fewer but much larger warheads.
A 100 kiloaton single explosion is less destructive than 10 explosions of 10 kiloton each. So Pakistan's approach of making small nukes in larger numbers also makes sense in increased effeciency.
Then security reasons. Its easier to shift and hide smaller warheads than larger ones.
In my opinion even Shaheen and other big ballistic missiles also carry cluster of small nukes instead of one large.

So for Pakistan small Tactical nukes make perfect sense.

 

[Zarvan]

Pakistan’s development of tactical weapons — in the form of the Nasr missile, which has a 60-kilometer range --- is only in response to concerns that India’s larger military could still wage a conventional war against the country, thinking Pakistan would not risk retaliation with a bigger nuclear weapon.

Sir I think Pakistan should develop a bomb like MOAB

 

[Mrc]

Making small pint sized nukes has more to do with Pakistan's low capacity of fissile material production. India has far more reactors than us and makes far greater amount of fissile material, so they can make fewer but larger nukes.
On the other hand Pakistan only produces small quantity of fissile material at any given time and makes a small warhead of whatever is available.
Thats why our number of nuclear warheads is increasing fast,but our total yeild in megatons is smaller than India As they have fewer but much larger warheads.
A 100 kiloaton single explosion is less destructive than 10 explosions of 10 kiloton each. So Pakistan's approach of making small nukes in larger numbers also makes sense in increased effeciency.
Then security reasons. Its easier to shift and hide smaller warheads than larger ones.
In my opinion even Shaheen and other big ballistic missiles also carry cluster of small nukes instead of one large.

So for Pakistan small Tactical nukes make perfect sense.

How in the world did you come to these conclusions? Completely opposite to reality...india has very low natural uranium ore..they can either run the civilian or military plants on domestic production...hence USA civil nuclear deal had an indirect effect of freeing domestic production for military use...
Pakistan on other hand has rather large uranium reserves and also nearly every think tank puts pak nuclear arsenal ahead of india not only in quantity but also in quality..

 

[SQ8]

Making small pint sized nukes has more to do with Pakistan's low capacity of fissile material production. India has far more reactors than us and makes far greater amount of fissile material, so they can make fewer but larger nukes.
On the other hand Pakistan only produces small quantity of fissile material at any given time and makes a small warhead of whatever is available.
Thats why our number of nuclear warheads is increasing fast,but our total yeild in megatons is smaller than India As they have fewer but much larger warheads.
A 100 kiloaton single explosion is less destructive than 10 explosions of 10 kiloton each. So Pakistan's approach of making small nukes in larger numbers also makes sense in increased effeciency.
Then security reasons. Its easier to shift and hide smaller warheads than larger ones.
In my opinion even Shaheen and other big ballistic missiles also carry cluster of small nukes instead of one large.

So for Pakistan small Tactical nukes make perfect sense.

Chah gaya hai tha k @The Deterrent

 

[shaheenmissile]

How in the world did you come to these conclusions? Completely opposite to reality...india has very low natural uranium ore..they can either run the civilian or military plants on domestic production...hence USA civil nuclear deal had an indirect effect of freeing domestic production for military use...
Pakistan on other hand has rather large uranium reserves and also nearly every think tank puts pak nuclear arsenal ahead of india not only in quantity but also in quality..

Propaganda is involved. Reality is different.
Weapon design is sophisticated as that is the only way of making small nukes.

 

[sady]

We are missing the whole picture. The scenario is a terrorist attack in India (doctored or real) India acts on cold doctrine. Sub nuclear push in to embarras Pakistan militarily, call Pakistans bluff once and for all and press Pakistan for all kind of favours India need (forget Kashmir,complete access across the Pakistan for transit , energy etc to CARs, to bully Pakistan to finally rise in stature as regional power) so what Pakistan does is use tac nuc weapons, cold doctrine countered as it depends on absence of escalation ladder. If Pakistan has no nuc tacs cold doctrine is a success as Pakistan will less likely to use strategic nucs and be suicidal. Now however, there is no sub nuclear space left. Thus no ambiguity no war. Tac nucs save the day for Pakistan and probably Sub continent. Provocation(cold start) by India based on a hunch that Pakistan will not use strategic nucs was a very dangerous game indeed. So dear Indians you should worship Pakistani tac nukes too. They probably saved you too.

 

[The Deterrent]

Chah gaya hai tha k @The Deterrent

Legitimate analysis

Either way, my question stands. If India's response is also tactical, Pakistan will take one Indian nuke somewhere, if strategic-everywhere. What does the use of the tactical nuke by Pakistan achieve?

You are asking the wrong question, its what Pakistan achieves by NOT using a tactical nuke. Simply put, deterrence.

What Pakistani military establishment hopes to achieve is the plugging of loop-holes created by rapid-military mobilization & assault tactics being adopted by the Indian military. Tactical nukes are a way to punish the conventional assault while ensuring that the nuclear escalation is gradual. Its true that India will respond accordingly, say, it will nuke the closest strategic forces base or an air-force base. But in turn, this will give opportunity to both parties (and the international community) to resolve the conflict via other means.
On the other hand, if there is no tactical nuke, a rapid Indian assault will breach the nuclear red-lines of Pakistan, resulting in a response of larger scale, therefore blowing the whole subcontinent into nuclear war.

 

[MilSpec]

We are missing the whole picture. The scenario is a terrorist attack in India (doctored or real) India acts on cold doctrine. Sub nuclear push in to embarras Pakistan militarily, call Pakistans bluff once and for all and press Pakistan for all kind of favours India need (forget Kashmir,complete access across the Pakistan for transit , energy etc to CARs, to bully Pakistan to finally rise in stature as regional power) so what Pakistan does is use tac nuc weapons, cold doctrine countered as it depends on absence of escalation ladder. If Pakistan has no nuc tacs cold doctrine is a success as Pakistan will less likely to use strategic nucs and be suicidal. Now however, there is no sub nuclear space left. Thus no ambiguity no war. Tac nucs save the day for Pakistan and probably Sub continent. Provocation(cold start) by India based on a hunch that Pakistan will not use strategic nucs was a very dangerous game indeed. So dear Indians you should worship Pakistani tac nukes too. They probably saved you too.

Yup, we have seen such worship worthy strategies in the past from pakistan too, and even then there were pakistani proponents that vehemently believed in the soundness of such strategies, does "security of the east lies in the west" ring a bell...
At the end of the day pakistani military's prime objective is not to fight to the end, it is self preservation and ensuring it overbearing reach in every institution of the nation. On a C/E matrix it gains more in loss than in a MAD.

Legitimate analysis


You are asking the wrong question, its what Pakistan achieves by NOT using a tactical nuke. Simply put, deterrence.

What Pakistani military establishment hopes to achieve is the plugging of loop-holes created by rapid-military mobilization & assault tactics being adopted by the Indian military. Tactical nukes are a way to punish the conventional assault while ensuring that the nuclear escalation is gradual. Its true that India will respond accordingly, say, it will nuke the closest strategic forces base or an air-force base. But in turn, this will give opportunity to both parties (and the international community) to resolve the conflict via other means.
On the other hand, if there is no tactical nuke, a rapid Indian assault will breach the nuclear red-lines of Pakistan, resulting in a response of larger scale, therefore blowing the whole subcontinent into nuclear war.

First thing I don't buy the tac nuke strike at all. The primary requirement for the any intiation of IBG movement is a Heavy Air Interdiction with forward air support, I highly doubt you will be ale to put anything in a 60 KM arc when an IBG moves in.

Most here forget the Air interdiction and Forward Air Support that precedes any IBG movement, unless you are going to teleport NASR battery, you have a much better chance with your SRBM to hit IBG or a holding formation.

 

[sady]

Yup, we have seen such worship worthy strategies in the past from pakistan too, and even then there were pakistani proponents that vehemently believed in the soundness of such strategies, does "security of the east lies in the west" ring a bell...
At the end of the day pakistani military's prime objective is not to fight to the end, it is self preservation and ensuring it overbearing reach in every institution of the nation. On a C/E matrix it gains more in loss than in a MAD.


First thing I don't buy the tac nuke strike at all. The primary requirement for the any intiation of IBG movement is a Heavy Air Interdiction with forward air support, I highly doubt you will be ale to put anything in a 60 KM arc when an IBG moves in.

Most here forget the Air interdiction and Forward Air Support that precedes any IBG movement, unless you are going to teleport NASR battery, you have a much better chance with your SRBM to hit CAS.

Strategic depth was a great strategy till Sept 11 happened. No strategy can encompass that level of event.
Every good organization self preseves.

 

[The Deterrent]

First thing I don't buy the tac nuke strike at all. The primary requirement for the any intiation of IBG movement is a Heavy Air Interdiction with forward air support, I highly doubt you will be ale to put anything in a 60 KM arc when an IBG moves in.

Most here forget the Air interdiction and Forward Air Support that precedes any IBG movement, unless you are going to teleport NASR battery, you have a much better chance with your SRBM to hit CAS.

I don't either, I believe almost every one is looking at the picture from the wrong angle.

Most probably the focus isn't towards stopping an IBG assault with tactical nukes, rather punishing it after it has occupied a certain area.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I don't either, I believe almost every one is looking at the picture from the wrong angle.

Most probably the focus isn't towards stopping an IBG assault with tactical nukes, rather punishing it after it has occupied a certain area.

Then ain't that already too late?