NASR : SHORT RANGE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON!

[The Deterrent]

Then ain't that already too late?

By this logic the whole concept of M.A.D. collapses, as it is already too late for one country. It is the capability to retaliate that deters the enemy. Tactical nukes on our end work similarly, they ensure that any sort of adventure will result in loss of the opponent's troops & equipment.
If your next question is "What about the Pakistani area/people being nuked?"
1. The radiation is over-hyped, detonation at optimum altitudes does not create that much fallout. Besides, the yield will be way too less (relatively).
2. The people are collateral damage and can be sacrificed to stop a nuclear war.

 

[MilSpec]

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

Not worth replying.

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

You will still need to bring in a missile battery with Sams and Infantry within a 60 Km arc. How do you propose doing that. If it is difficult to do that during a IBG assault how will that be possible to do so in a holding formation, especially if a IBG breaks into a multiple heads with every replenishment.

 

[shaheenmissile]

In a way India is responsible for Pakistan's battle field nukes.
They have been using their diplomatic influence to sabotage and block almost all conventional weapons deals Pakistan tries to make, while India themselves amass all types of conventonal weapons.
Pakistan being starved of convemtional weapon capanility had to find alternative and the only alternative was Battlefield nukes.
If India stops blocking Pakistan's conventional weapon deals,then may be in a few years Pakistan may amass enough conventional weapons to feel confident that they will stop a large scale Indian attack without using Nukes.
In a sense its a similar situation as USA and North Korea. They cannot buy conventional weapons and no way stop USA in a war
So any war betweem USA and North Korea will have to be a nuclear war.
As a result all North Koreans may die in an American nuclear barrage, but significant losses will also be suffered by neighboting American allies an any Invading American army.
So India should re-think their policy of blocking Pakistani conventional weapon deals.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

By this logic the whole concept of M.A.D. collapses, as it is already too late for one country. It is the capability to retaliate that deters the enemy. Tactical nukes on our end work similarly, they ensure that any sort of adventure will result in loss of the opponent's troops & equipment.
If your next question is "What about the Pakistani area/people being nuked?"
1. The radiation is over-hyped, detonation at optimum altitudes does not create that much fallout. Besides, the yield will be way too less (relatively).
2. The people are collateral damage and can be sacrificed to stop a nuclear war.

Well you need to read the Research Paper on the efficacy of TacNukes on Armored Columns (I suspect that you already have, since it has even been quoted here on PDF) which clearly points out the deficiencies in executing such theories/Tactics. Make one wonder if TacNukes are any good at all. Though in desperation; any port in a storm... as the old salt's adage goes.

 

[MilSpec]

In a way India is responsible for Pakistan's battle field nukes.
They have been using their diplomatic influence to sabotage and block almost all conventional weapons deals Pakistan tries to make, while India themselves amass all types of conventonal weapons.
Pakistan being starved of convemtional weapon capanility had to find alternative and the only alternative was Battlefield nukes.
If India stops blocking Pakistan's conventional weapon deals,then may be in a few years Pakistan may amass enough conventional weapons to feel confident that they will stop a large scale Indian attack without using Nukes.
In a sense its a similar situation as USA and North Korea. They cannot buy conventional weapons and no way stop USA in a war
So any war betweem USA and North Korea will have to be a nuclear war.
As a result all North Koreans may die in an American nuclear barrage, but significant losses will also be suffered by neighboting American allies an any Invading American army.
So India should re-think their policy of blocking Pakistani conventional weapon deals.

Interesting take, but the fact of the matter is nothing is really blocked to pakistan, you have regularly funded and aided by US and Chine, you have access to european markets aswell, you have bought Saab products, your experts on the forum consistently claim of pakistan having evaluated EFT and Rafale. The bottom line with 17.5% of Defence budget in comparison with India, you cannot even dream of conventional parity, and none of your generals have ever wanted to have parity with India.

As far as blocking deals are concerned, India's will use it's diplomatic and economic clout for it's interests, and it makes sense for India to do so to reduce any addition of threat perception in the neighborhood.

 

[The Deterrent]

You will still need to bring in a missile battery with Sams and Infantry within a 60 Km arc. How do you propose doing that. If it is difficult to do that during a IBG assault how will that be possible to do so in a holding formation, especially if a IBG breaks into a multiple heads with every replenishment.

Nasr is designed such that SAM/infantry cover isn't needed, its visual signature is smaller. One Nasr launch vehicle with one command & control vehicle is enough for the tactical strike. The missiles being canisterized also reduce launch time. This is why emphasis is being paid on its "shoot-and-scoot" capability.

Well you need to read the Research Paper on the efficacy of TacNukes on Armored Columns (I suspect that you already have, since it has even been quoted here on PDF) which clearly points out the deficiencies in executing such theories/Tactics. Make one wonder if TacNukes are any good at all. Though in desperation; any port in a storm... as the old salt's adage goes.

Which is why I said that only one angle of the picture is being looked upon by many, and that is the use of tactical nukes against IBGs/armored columns.
This isn't the only use of tactical nukes, they can be used against the enemy over an occupied territory.

 

[Bratva]

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.

Just to add on to that post, NASR is designed for Rajhastan theater. This is where Indian CSD/Rapid mobilization strategy is being taken place for last 4 four years. Even Indian supreme court remarked couple days back next war would be fought in Rajashtan region

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Just to add on to that post, NASR is designed for Rajhastan theater. This is where Indian CSD/Rapid mobilization strategy is being taken place for last 4 four years. Even Indian supreme court remarked couple days back next war would be fought in Rajashtan region

So now you think that the Supreme Court is making the War Plans?
Interesting.

 

[Bratva]

So now you think that the Supreme Court is making the War Plans?
Interesting.

Was just trying to relate what top indian officials think about vis a vis what Pakistani thinks about. Remind me How senior IA officer was outed as ISI mole ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Was just trying to relate what top indian officials think about vis a vis what Pakistani thinks about.

But where does the SC come into this?

 

[Bratva]

But where does the SC come into this?

You read news about army promotion case in Indian supreme court , SC comes in to this in that way they think same as Pakistani do Rajhastan is a flash spot for next War. And read my above post once again, I edited it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You read news about army promotion case in Indian supreme court , SC comes in to this in that way they think same as Pakistani do Rajhastan is a flash spot for next War. And read my above post once again, I edited it.

Precision in statements is very important. So, did the SC make that statement that you attributed to it, just as the edited sentence simply borders on tripe!

 

[Bratva]

Precision in statements is very important. So, did the SC make that statement that you attributed to it, just as the edited sentence simply borders on tripe!

Arguing on behalf of the army, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that the age profile of Colonels in neighbouring Pakistan and Chinese Armies is 37 years, in Israel its 32 years, while in India it is 41 years. "For the Siachen front, the country needs younger colonels who can work there," said Mr Rohatgi.

Reacting on Mr Rohatgi's arguments, the top court said, "There can be no guarantee that the next war will be in Siachen, it can be in the deserts of Rajasthan."

 

[wiseone2]

In a way India is responsible for Pakistan's battle field nukes.
They have been using their diplomatic influence to sabotage and block almost all conventional weapons deals Pakistan tries to make, while India themselves amass all types of conventonal weapons.
Pakistan being starved of convemtional weapon capanility had to find alternative and the only alternative was Battlefield nukes.
If India stops blocking Pakistan's conventional weapon deals,then may be in a few years Pakistan may amass enough conventional weapons to feel confident that they will stop a large scale Indian attack without using Nukes.
In a sense its a similar situation as USA and North Korea. They cannot buy conventional weapons and no way stop USA in a war
So any war betweem USA and North Korea will have to be a nuclear war.
As a result all North Koreans may die in an American nuclear barrage, but significant losses will also be suffered by neighboting American allies an any Invading American army.
So India should re-think their policy of blocking Pakistani conventional weapon deals.

Does Pakistan have the money to acquire sophisticated conventional weapons ? I can speak for all Indians. I do not think others should be subsidizing Pakistani army grandiose dreams.

Pakistan pursued nukes in the 1980s when they had access to American conventional weapons. Your argument does not hold water.

Pakistan lack of conventional weapons reduces the risk of nuclear war. It prevents Pakistani army for indulging in any Kargil type adventures.

 

[Akasa]

With such a short range, the defenders using these as defensive weapons will anhilate themselves along the adversary, not to mention that they will also wipe out the people/citizens that they are tasked to defend!! Some Defensive tactic that is intended to be....... .

Absolutely false; the American Atomic Annie gun fired a 15-kiloton projectile to a range of merely 11 km and yet the observers and gunners were perfectly fine during nuclear trials.