Next war with opponents from Sangh pariwar will be different

[sherin616]

Pakistanis keep forgetting Indian satellite capabilities we will know the moment you release a missile while Pakistan has to wait tilll information is passed from various sources

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Perfect: Large salvos ... just check how many missiles Pak would need to overpower ABM......
Remember India would just need one missile to destroy one target with its 1940 era tech..

With the huge amount of advanced missiles Pakistan has, not that many. How do you know Pakistan doesn't doesn't already have an advanced ABM system? After all, the entire indian establishment were adamant that Pakistan could NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons with or without Chinese assistance right till a day before Pakistan tested our devices in 1998. Just as then so is now

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

as i regularly say. next war will be hindu vs muslim war just like muslims vs soviet war in afghanistan

Pakistanis keep forgetting Indian satellite capabilities we will know the moment you release a missile while Pakistan has to wait tilll information is passed from various sources

good so you mean that pakistan is not using chines satellites.

 

[BABA AGHORI]

With the huge amount of advanced missiles Pakistan has, not that many. How do you know Pakistan doesn't doesn't already have an advanced ABM system? After all, the entire indian establishment were adamant that Pakistan could NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons with or without Chinese assistance right till a day before Pakistan tested our devices in 1998. Just as then so is now

"With the huge amount of advanced missiles Pakistan has" this is amazing


Wella, and who knows Pakistan did it themselves, or stole it from west or bargained it with North Korea for stolen centrifuge tech from west rather than taking assistance from China. Any ways hope PA lives in same state of mind as you ...

Pakistan technology is always full of surprises for example DSI....

 

[ManavKalia]

You make it look like an ABM is the holy grail of national defence, the system is still unproven in a war against real cruise or ballistic missiles (homemade Palestinian ones don't count) and missile tech is advancing very rapidly and I believe that pakistan will improve is missile tech instead of pursuing an ABM system which is a more economical option.

Missile development is mature tech vs ABM which is sunrise tech, which means after a certain period, new developments will start to match the rate with which missile tech improves. Sure it is more expensive, that's why only the bigger economies are pursuing it. In India Pakistan nuclear scenarios, ABM will be untested in actual combat, but the missiles and their nuclear payloads will also be untested in actual combat. I believe I had made this point in previous posts also.

The only "missiles" ANY ABM system in the world has had sured success against is in Israel against 1940s Soviet era Hamas Katyshua rockets and their garden shed made firework style rockets. Even the most advanced ABM system in the world in America has had sure success in CONTROLLED conditions against basic and lower tech missiles. Advanced Pakistani missile systems in large salvos would completely nullify and overwhelm any indian ABM system.

The more salvos you have to employ, the less the locations you can target. If you use 50 missiles, and use 10 salvos per attack you can target only 5 locations. Whereas India can target 50 locations with same number of missiles.

These missiles are fired by calculating speed of RV and Trajectory,An ABM systems fails if missile is MIRVed or even one RV carries counter measures.It is simply economical to produce and deploy more maneuverable and countermeasure equipped RV's then ABM system.When India deployed s 300 we just deployed Babur man missile to outflank it.Case is simply if even 10 missiles are launched on one target and ABM gets 50% hit then still the one nuke hit will destroy all of System,I hope you know about EMP due to nuke detonation.

The same point, if you use 10 missiles per location, and both countries have 50 missiles, you can only target 5 locations, whereas India can target 50 locations.

The point all you guys are missing. The deterrence factor as explained in my previous posts in this thread. In layman's terms, India has a nuclear deterrent that Pakistan doesn't. You can argue the effectiveness of this deterrent till the end of time. I can say 90% effective, you can say 10% effective. But you're missing the point completely. Even a 10% effective deterrence of India is infinitely greater than a 0% effective deterrence of Pakistan. In the end neither will you launch a missile, neither will we employ ABM. The objective is to have strategic nuclear advantage.

And trust me, Pakistan's military establishment is very worried about India's ABM capabilities, both officially and unofficially. So is China.

And guys, I don't mind arguing but I feel I'm repeating points already explained in earlier posts in this thread, so please a small request, come up with new points, cause I don't want to argue only for arguments sake in endless circles. Thanks..

 

[Sine Nomine]

Missile development is mature tech vs ABM which is sunrise tech, which means after a certain period, new developments will start to match the rate with which missile tech improves. Sure it is more expensive, that's why only the bigger economies are pursuing it. In India Pakistan nuclear scenarios, ABM will be untested in actual combat, but the missiles and their nuclear payloads will also be untested in actual combat. I believe I had made this point in previous posts also.




The more salvos you have to employ, the less the locations you can target. If you use 50 missiles, and use 10 salvos per attack you can target only 5 locations. Whereas India can target 50 locations with same number of missiles.



The same point, if you use 10 missiles per location, and both countries have 50 missiles, you can only target 5 locations, whereas India can target 50 locations.

The point all you guys are missing. The deterrence factor as explained in my previous posts in this thread. In layman's terms, India has a nuclear deterrent that Pakistan doesn't. You can argue the effectiveness of this deterrent till the end of time. I can say 90% effective, you can say 10% effective. But you're missing the point completely. Even a 10% effective deterrence of India is infinitely greater than a 0% effective deterrence of Pakistan. In the end neither will you launch a missile, neither will we employ ABM. The objective is to have strategic nuclear advantage.

And trust me, Pakistan's military establishment is very worried about India's ABM capabilities, both officially and unofficially. So is China.

And guys, I don't mind arguing but I feel I'm repeating points already explained in earlier posts in this thread, so please a small request, come up with new points, cause I don't want to argue only for arguments sake in endless circles. Thanks..

There are no winners in nuclear war.
Pakistan can rain India with Missiles.
Cruise Missiles can be employed for taking out OTH system employed by ABM for interception.
ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large(ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.

In practice, the price of the interceptor missile was considerable, due to its sophistication. The system had to be guided all the way to an interception, which demanded guidance and control systems that worked within and outside the atmosphere. The Nike Zeus was expected to cost about $1 million about the same as an ICBM. However, due to their relatively short ranges, an ABM missile would be needed to counter an ICBM wherever it might be aimed. That implies that dozens of interceptors are needed for every ICBM.This led to intense debates about the "cost exchange-ratio" between interceptors and warheads.

Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against.
Cost of Defense would be much greater for India.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

"With the huge amount of advanced missiles Pakistan has" this is amazing


Wella, and who knows Pakistan did it themselves, or stole it from west or bargained it with North Korea for stolen centrifuge tech from west rather than taking assistance from China. Any ways hope PA lives in same state of mind as you ...

Pakistan technology is always full for surprises for example DSI....

More indian talk and fantasies. If the above weren't true then what's stopping india launching a full scale military assault on Pakistan after mumbai 2008 and Uri last month? That too when Pakistan is at least 7× smaller than india and doesn't have access to the world's most advanced weapons systems like india does. Why is India too powerless to do anything to PAKISTAN militarily? Ask the indian military high command. They can give you the painful answer.

You indians talk to much and do very little. Because you don't REALLY believe in your fantasies. If you did you wouldn't be on a Pakistani forum venting your fantasies.

 

[GURU DUTT]

"With the huge amount of advanced missiles Pakistan has" this is amazing


Wella, and who knows Pakistan did it themselves, or stole it from west or bargained it with North Korea for stolen centrifuge tech from west rather than taking assistance from China. Any ways hope PA lives in same state of mind as you ...

Pakistan technology is always full for surprises for example DSI....

baba ji tussi wee na

thing is they are programmed to think we are weak and its good for us in a way helps us evry time if you know what i mean

yes you guess it right

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Missile development is mature tech vs ABM which is sunrise tech, which means after a certain period, new developments will start to match the rate with which missile tech improves. Sure it is more expensive, that's why only the bigger economies are pursuing it. In India Pakistan nuclear scenarios, ABM will be untested in actual combat, but the missiles and their nuclear payloads will also be untested in actual combat. I believe I had made this point in previous posts also.




The more salvos you have to employ, the less the locations you can target. If you use 50 missiles, and use 10 salvos per attack you can target only 5 locations. Whereas India can target 50 locations with same number of missiles.



The same point, if you use 10 missiles per location, and both countries have 50 missiles, you can only target 5 locations, whereas India can target 50 locations.

The point all you guys are missing. The deterrence factor as explained in my previous posts in this thread. In layman's terms, India has a nuclear deterrent that Pakistan doesn't. You can argue the effectiveness of this deterrent till the end of time. I can say 90% effective, you can say 10% effective. But you're missing the point completely. Even a 10% effective deterrence of India is infinitely greater than a 0% effective deterrence of Pakistan. In the end neither will you launch a missile, neither will we employ ABM. The objective is to have strategic nuclear advantage.

And trust me, Pakistan's military establishment is very worried about India's ABM capabilities, both officially and unofficially. So is China.

And guys, I don't mind arguing but I feel I'm repeating points already explained in earlier posts in this thread, so please a small request, come up with new points, cause I don't want to argue only for arguments sake in endless circles. Thanks..

If what you say is remotely true than india would have attacked Pakistan with a full scale military assault after mumbai 2008 and URI last month. The fact that they couldn't is very telling despite the fact that Pakistan is at least 7x smaller than india and doesn't have abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems like india does.

Pakistan in all probability covertly has sufficient countermeasures to the Indian ABM system that they have not alluded to just like they didn't with our nuclear weapons program pre-May 1998.

baba ji tussi wee na

thing is they are programmed to think we are weak and its good for us in a way helps us evry time if you know what i mean


yes you guess it right

Think you'll find many Indians especially on PDF are programed to believe india is a super power comparable to America, Russia & China.

 

[ManavKalia]

There are no winners in nuclear war.
Pakistan can rain India with Missiles.
Cruise Missiles can be employed for taking out OTH system employed by ABM for interception.
ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large(ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.

In practice, the price of the interceptor missile was considerable, due to its sophistication. The system had to be guided all the way to an interception, which demanded guidance and control systems that worked within and outside the atmosphere. The Nike Zeus was expected to cost about $1 million about the same as an ICBM. However, due to their relatively short ranges, an ABM missile would be needed to counter an ICBM wherever it might be aimed. That implies that dozens of interceptors are needed for every ICBM.This led to intense debates about the "cost exchange-ratio" between interceptors and warheads.

Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against.
Cost of Defense would be much greater for India.

India's ABM program factors in cruise missiles and MIRV also. These are not new techs, nor are they unknown to our ABM designers.

Regarding cost, our ABM budget is in the billions of dollars. We have recently purchased a particular system from Russia, which has been much debated in PDF. It was not our first expensive acquisition, neither our last.

Budget for ABM is undisclosed and unlimited, we have been working on ABM for a long time, shortly after Pakistan announced its nuclear power status. The objective is to gain decisive strategic nuclear edge in South Asia. Our economy can afford the cost..

 

[BABA AGHORI]

Think you'll find many Indians especially on PDF are programed to believe india is a super power comparable to America, Russia & China.

Was just wondering why NASR; DSI or CHINA didn't emerged into your argument yet...

 

[Darth Vader]

Leme put in simple Words for every one

Pakistan army is reactive force rather than proactive

You can clean area but if you don't stop the flow they will Keep Coming Back , they need to go after there supporters , 1st funding not just inside Pakistan but outside too
Go after Terrorist safe heaven no matter whereever they are

Thats The Only To save Lives

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Was just wondering why NASR; DSI or CHINA didn't emerged into your argument yet...

Because I'm sure the indian media gives you enough of it everyday

 

[Jobless Jack]

India's ABM program factors in cruise missiles and MIRV also. These are not new techs, nor are they unknown to our ABM designers.

Regarding cost, our ABM budget is in the billions of dollars. We have recently purchased a particular system from Russia, which has been much debated in PDF. It was not our first expensive acquisition, neither our last.

Budget for ABM is undisclosed and unlimited, we have been working on ABM for a long time, shortly after Pakistan announced its nuclear power status. The objective is to gain decisive strategic nuclear edge in South Asia. Our economy can afford the cost..

waste as much cash as you want .. end of the day we only need a few nukes to get through ..

they will get thorugh. india will retaliate. hence MAD senario. Hence no nuke war. war atleast for the next forseable future will be limited to IB,LOC and proxies.

unless something serious happens on the ground ie internal insurgency

 

[Darth Vader]

Thats the main Problem Now for Pakistan You can fight nuke wars later

And Give this world a peace for day or two so every can live with peace and safety