NASR : SHORT RANGE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON!

[RadioactiveFriends]

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.

 

[QAMARSHAZADQURESHI]

 

[Waffen SS]

Nasr is a stupid weapon that makes no sense for the following reasons:

1. The idea of using nukes against an armored assault is plainly ridiculous. It could only happen in video games.

2. One cannot use nukes just 70 km away from the border.

3. The missile would have to be handed over to field formation before firing it. The Strategic command would hand over the missile to a corps commander!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is brilliant.

4. Tactical nuclear missile is an oxymoron. There is nothing tactical about a nuke.

5. Russians and Americans have learned the lesson. All such stupid tactical nukes have been withdrawn from service. Once, they even had nuclear tipped:
a. Surface-to-air missiles
b. Anti-submarine rockets
c. Depth charges
d. Artillery shells
e. Land mines

 

[rockstar08]

I am a very big Fan of NASR system ... really

 

[volatile]

Its an interesting choice using battle field nuke ,it will be more of last resort and deterrent I guess then 1st choice weapon .Imagine Chemical war head in Nasr it will make irrelevant any armor .

 

[brahmastra]

Chemical warhead? really?????

 

[PWFI]

Nasr is a stupid weapon that makes no sense for the following reasons:

1. The idea of using nukes against an armored assault is plainly ridiculous. It could only happen in video games.

2. One cannot use nukes just 70 km away from the border.

3. The missile would have to be handed over to field formation before firing it. The Strategic command would hand over the missile to a corps commander!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is brilliant.

4. Tactical nuclear missile is an oxymoron. There is nothing tactical about a nuke.

5. Russians and Americans have learned the lesson. All such stupid tactical nukes have been withdrawn from service. Once, they even had nuclear tipped:
a. Surface-to-air missiles
b. Anti-submarine rockets
c. Depth charges
d. Artillery shells
e. Land mines

Did you know about something like "miniaturized nuclear warhead"?

 

[Gufi]

Before more people compare this missile and its purpose and why USA and Russia did not use the missiles learn the basic art of geographic locations. The chance of armoured battalions entering America in large numbers is near impossible. Useless comparing different wars and strategies without taking into consideration the different factors involved.

 

[kaku1]

Before more people compare this missile and its purpose and why USA and Russia did not use the missiles learn the basic art of geographic locations. The chance of armoured battalions entering America in large numbers is near impossible. Useless comparing different wars and strategies without taking into consideration the different factors involved.

*cough* Europe.

 

[Gufi]

*cough* Europe.

ok first of all no sarcasm, learn to use your brain. The battlefield strategy depends on depth of the opposition. You compare Europe with the condition here. Yes the tank battalions moving from Russia and taking over Europe is the same as Indians moving into Pakistan. Great example again.Stopping an armoured battalion is not the same when you have depth and you do not.

 

[Dalit]

Nasr is a stupid weapon that makes no sense for the following reasons:

1. The idea of using nukes against an armored assault is plainly ridiculous. It could only happen in video games.

2. One cannot use nukes just 70 km away from the border.

3. The missile would have to be handed over to field formation before firing it. The Strategic command would hand over the missile to a corps commander!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is brilliant.

4. Tactical nuclear missile is an oxymoron. There is nothing tactical about a nuke.

5. Russians and Americans have learned the lesson. All such stupid tactical nukes have been withdrawn from service. Once, they even had nuclear tipped:
a. Surface-to-air missiles
b. Anti-submarine rockets
c. Depth charges
d. Artillery shells
e. Land mines

1. These aren't your average nuke warheads. These are miniaturized warheads with lower yields, yet powerful enough to take out entire units!

2. The weapon of choice is mainly a deterrent. Needless to explain anything.

3. Like as if conventional nukes detonating thousands of miles away will save you from any harm... You cannot negate the after affects of a conventional nor tactical nuke strike. Your concerns are therefore unfounded.

The Russians and Americans aren't exactly neighbours like India and Pakistan. To counter a rapid offensive you need a rapid counter move. Or would you rather confront the numerically superior Indians conventionally knowing they are halfway in? I'm all ears...

The Nasr provides the adequate punch along with rapid deployment options. In fact, it sends shivers down the spine of the enemy! Of course, you need layers of command and control when it comes to nuclear weapons in any shape or size. This isn't a shortcoming, but rather a security mechanism.

In the end, Nasr is a weapon of deterrence and a highly effective one at that! Just read up on the Indian/US paranoia regarding Nasr and you'll understand its effectiveness as well as utility. There is a reason why the Cold Start doctrine has literally gone cold...

 

[kaku1]

ok first of all no sarcasm, learn to use your brain. The battlefield strategy depends on depth of the opposition. You compare Europe with the condition here. Yes the tank battalions moving from Russia and taking over Europe is the same as Indians moving into Pakistan. Great example again.Stopping an armoured battalion is not the same when you have depth and you do not.

Firstly, that was not sarcasm, use your brain first.

And if you put aside your ignorance then that was valid question. Firstly you said Russia never used Tactical Nukes, seriously? Now I know your knowledge.
OTR-21 Tochka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gufi]

And if you put aside your ignorance then that was valid question. Firstly you said Russia never used Tactical Nukes, seriously? Now I know your knowledge.

Post where I said that... I talked about the situation of the two scenarios being different. Now read and understand and stop arguing without logic.

Distance and time are important factors in military strategy. Russia or USA are not relevant examples.

 

[kaku1]

Post where I said that... I talked about the situation of the two scenarios being different. Now read and understand and stop arguing without logic.

Facepalm, Read your comment again, I dont want to enter in personal spat who see every reply to him as offense. Bye Bye.

 

[xyxmt]

Before more people compare this missile and its purpose and why USA and Russia did not use the missiles learn the basic art of geographic locations. The chance of armoured battalions entering America in large numbers is near impossible. Useless comparing different wars and strategies without taking into consideration the different factors involved.

Russia and US were never in the physical confrontation