Options for Pakistan in dealing with Ind, US

[SQ8]

GUYS GUYS GUYS!!!!

u r missing the question i asked.... what is the level of training of this military/civilian leadership regarding when to or when not to use these nuclear weapons. cause millions of lives are dependent on the level of their training/education on the subject. Cause frankly if the only critaria is "THEY ARE WISE ENOUGH BY EXPERIENCE" than v r in some deep triouble on both side

In technical training: The nuclear command structure, the codes, the weapons and their operators.. top notch.
In diplomatic,political,military,humanitarian training: Not so top notch.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

for clarification sake, Indian no-first-use policy does not distinguish between tactical/strategic nukes and on whose soil it is used...the wording is "nuclear retaliation to a first strike (on Indian assets) will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage''... meaning even if the attack is by a tac nuke on pakistani soil, it will be considered as a first strike against india and the retaliation will be disproportionate.

also there is a talk doing rounds that indian nfu has been changed to no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and this came from a person no less than the national security advisor



MEA - Ministry of External Affairs

well first of all i am against war
but from what i can understand from yours post is basically you are saying in case of a cold start doctrine type limited strikes takes place & for Pakistan in order to halt the the advancing Indian army hits it with a tactical nuclear warhead which will be for defensive purpose in the first place India will retaliate with a massive response nuclear strike OK now my question to you is do you think that Pakistanis doesn't know this ? trust me they do & thats where the nuclear deterrent comes to effect which is to deter a war from happening for eg if someone knows that using tactical nukes would invite a full fledged massive nuclear response in which scenario the country will lose it all, then are Pakistanis that foolish to go for tactical nuclear response in the first place no they wont in fact they will go for an all out full fledged massive nuclear strike in response , India too will also go for massive nuclear response so in another words if India uses it cold start doctrine the retaliation of it kazhugu you can be rest assured will be an "Mutually Assured Destruction" in which case both Pakistan & India will get annihilated thats why there should be no cold start doctrines tactical strikes in the first place as it will trigger an all out nuclear war
so the chances of a indo-pak war will not happen because both will lose in this scenario lets be honest
this is not 1971 anymore the world has changed a lot since then

 

[Sinnerman108]

well first of all i am against war
but from what i can understand from yours post is basically you are saying in case of a cold start doctrine type limited strikes takes place & for Pakistan in order to halt the the advancing Indian army hits it with a tactical nuclear warhead which will be for defensive purpose in the first place India will retaliate with a massive response nuclear strike OK now my question to you is do you think that Pakistanis doesn't know this ? trust me they do & thats where the nuclear deterrent comes to effect which is to deter a war from happening for how for eg if someone knows that using tactical nukes would invite a full fledged massive nuclear response in which scenario the country will lose it all, then are Pakistanis that foolish to go for tactical nuclear response in the first place no they wont in fact they will go for an all out full fledged massive nuclear strike in response , India too will also go for massive nuclear response so in another words if India uses it cold start doctrine the retaliation of it kazhugu you can be rest assured will be an "Mutually Assured Destruction" in which case both Pakistan & India will get annihilated thats why there should be no cold start doctrines tactical strikes in the first place as it will trigger an all out nuclear war
so the chances of a indo-pak war will not happen because both will lose in this scenario lets be honest
this is not 1971 anymore the world has changed a lot since then

100% spot on with that analysis.
It's been too long since both countries became Nuclear powers, the hormones have settled and a period of sanity will prevail.

 

[Tshering22]

I think both countries understand the risk of nuclear war. That is why they keep on spending on conventional weapons. The secenario from Pakistani perspective would be that a nuclear strike would be preceeded by a non state incident whereby, Inida would respond through quick but limited strike through its IBG's.

Not exactly. What you term as military "buildup" for us is actually modernization that was due since 90s. At that time we had a dumpy economy and Russia was in a shytestorm so we couldn't modernize.

The play beocmes tricky after this. How far the IBG's would penetrate or how many fronts are opened simultaneously before PA is pushed to order a Tactical Nuclear Strike.

You must understand that any nuclear strike whether standard or "tactical" as you call it, would throw open the nuclear threshold for any form of retaliation in same or greater measure. You're not the first one thinking of tactical nukes, since former world powers have also thought and abandoned such plans. A nuke is a nuke whether 2t or 200 mt in power.

Another factor comes into play here. What if the limited Tactical Strike is launched on Indian Armored Brigades on Pakistani soil? What then? Would India counter strike with Nuclear Weapons?

Naturally. If the GOI doesn't retaliate in that fashion (seeing this conflict itself being a form of retaliation), that government will be skinned alive by the military and the people. During combat operations, the armed forces can say NO to the government under extreme situations. This is one reason why the GOI doesn't conduct war; greedy politicians fear that the military would taste blood of power to say NO to any damn rubbish the government dodos throw at them.

IMO, given the current situation, the IBG strike is a cushion, created by India to give it maneuver room to use "Other" options to tackle Pakistan. It knows fully well that except for a rouge launch possibility, Nuclear exchange is next to impossible as other nations will step in quickly to diffuse the situation the moment conventional engagement starts.

Nukes are deterrence for us. We don't intend to use it unless someone has really lost his mind and plans to threaten our national survival. Wars will be conventional and it will be tiny and rapid conflicts unlike the years of fighting like in WW2.

No nation would take any "strong step" today if there is military tension. Maximum a negotiation request would be made by a nation willing to mediate as diplomats. Nothing more.

Besides, we aren't crazy enough to attack you and slow down our economy, unless you're cuckoo enough to cause another Mumbai attack.

They have calculated that it will take atleast a week before external diplomatic forces come into play, earnestly. A week that India thinks it needs to "Teach" Pakistan a lesson.

Only if another major jihadi attack (goodness forbid) happens in India. Otherwise, we don't want to waste time and money over wars.

Development of nuclear tipped shells fired from our 155 mm SPG's and the M 110 SPG's would be a capabiltiy that can give India second thoughts on the IBG strike scenario.

I told you, anything that has to do with nuclear weapons would throw open the threshold for retaliation to any limitation. Even your most fanatic of general won't consider a nuclear option. If you read carefully, COLD START was never a land grabbing strategy. It was a punitive strategy aimed at causing similar damage to any that is planned against India. That's all.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Options for Pakistan in dealing with Ind, US:

Make unconditional peace with India, hope they oblige and stop training and exporting terror will make both US and India happy so they stop plans against you.


India and US aren't mindless fools who hate for no reason, you keep giving them the ammunition they will keep actions against you.

 

[53fd]

The problems between India & Pakistan will take the back seat. Both India & Pakistan have enough problems internally to be at loggerheads with one another, & neither are that 'strong' to 'overpower' the other. Pakistan faces a far significant threat from the Western front, & due to the lack of trust between Pakistan & the US over Afghanistan; & with the US acting unpredictably & not afraid to stretch the limits, that is a much graver issue. Although I do not believe it poses an existential threat to Pakistan (or something that cannot be taken care of), but a significant challenge nevertheless.

 

[pmukherjee]

@genmirajborgza786 (# 47)

Buddy, there is only one small problem with the scenario that you have drawn. What happens if the IBGs penetrate into Pakistani territory as a result of a massive terrorist strike like Mumbai 2008 or a Pakistani misadventure like Kargil 1998? The public opinion would be so massive this time that no elected government could back out from declaring war on Pakistan and then hope to continue in power. So assuming that a terrorist attack originating from Pakistan leads to a conventional attack by India leading to a massive all out nuke attack by Pakistan and an all out response by India. Both countries annihilated. Pakistan totally wiped out and of India not much remaining. Is that it? I mean will Pakistan agree to get wiped out for the sake of supporting some mad jihadis? If that is the case then why are both India and Pakistan continuing to arm themselves conventionally. Why doesn't Pakistan stop spending money on the fighters from China and the new naval frigates and the AWACS and the aerial refuelers and so on and so forth? If Pakistan has no plans to contest us conventionally at all and wants to nuke us the minute war breaks out then why take the trouble of improving its conventional strength and waste all this money?

The reason is that there is a strategic space under the nuclear threshold which permits a conventional war between the two nations without use of nukes. Pakistan and India are both aware of this. Pakistan knows that it can get attacked even under the threat of a MAD scenario. Certain lines have to be crossed for that to happen. Those lines are the repeat of Mumbai like terrorist attacks which are traced back to Pakistan and Kargil like misadventures. India knows once the war has commenced, if certain lines are crossed then Pakistan will be forced to use the nuclear option. These lines are known as Pakistan's nuclear threshold. I wouldn't wish to elaborate further. Both countries continue to arm themselves to fight a conventional war in between these two sets of lines.

Rest assured that there exists a scenario for a Limited War Under the Nuclear Umbrella.


Therefore it is of paramount importance that Pakistan manages to subdue the jihadis and stop them from running wild.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

@genmirajborgza786 (# 47)

Buddy, there is only one small problem with the scenario that you have drawn. What happens if the IBGs penetrate into Pakistani territory as a result of a massive terrorist strike like Mumbai 2008 or a Pakistani misadventure like Kargil 1998? The public opinion would be so massive this time that no elected government could back out from declaring war on Pakistan and then hope to continue in power. So assuming that a terrorist attack originating from Pakistan leads to a conventional attack by India leading to a massive all out nuke attack by Pakistan and an all out response by India. Both countries annihilated. Pakistan totally wiped out and of India not much remaining. Is that it? I mean will Pakistan agree to get wiped out for the sake of supporting some mad jihadis? If that is the case then why are both India and Pakistan continuing to arm themselves conventionally. Why doesn't Pakistan stop spending money on the fighters from China and the new naval frigates and the AWACS and the aerial refuelers and so on and so forth? If Pakistan has no plans to contest us conventionally at all and wants to nuke us the minute war breaks out then why take the trouble of improving its conventional strength and waste all this money?

The reason is that there is a strategic space under the nuclear threshold which permits a conventional war between the two nations without use of nukes. Pakistan and India are both aware of this. Pakistan knows that it can get attacked even under the threat of a MAD scenario. Certain lines have to be crossed for that to happen. Those lines are the repeat of Mumbai like terrorist attacks which are traced back to Pakistan and Kargil like misadventures. India knows once the war has commenced, if certain lines are crossed then Pakistan will be forced to use the nuclear option. These lines are known as Pakistan's nuclear threshold. I wouldn't wish to elaborate further. Both countries continue to arm themselves to fight a conventional war in between these two sets of lines.

Rest assured that there exists a scenario for a Limited War Under the Nuclear Umbrella.


Therefore it is of paramount importance that Pakistan manages to subdue the jihadis and stop them from running wild.

yes dada i agree with you that there should be no mumbai attacks or Kargil type misadventure from Pakistan in the future & i am completely against the use of any militants be it the let or Jud against India no doubt about it . however i was talking on the context of a surprise attack by India with out any mumbai attacks or kargil misadventure say more from the point of an 1971 or siachin type invasion which i think is not feasible anymore

 

[Oldman1]

The one and only option is to maintain the status quo where both India and Pakistan still exist. Attempt to change it will destroy that delicate balance and more than a billion people will be gone in hours.

 

[pmukherjee]

yes dada i agree with you that there should be no mumbai attacks or Kargil type misadventure from Pakistan in the future & i am completely against the use of any militants be it the let or Jud against India no doubt about it . however i was talking on the context of a surprise attack by India with out any mumbai attacks or kargil misadventure say more from the point of an 1971 or siachin type invasion which i think is not feasible anymore

War should not be ruled out as being improbable between nuclear armed neighbours. If it was then Kargil could not have happened.Yes, you are right, only grave provocation can lead to war. That is why it should be avoided at all costs.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

War should not be ruled out as being improbable between nuclear armed neighbours. If it was then Kargil could not have happened.Yes, you are right, only grave provocation can lead to war. That is why it should be avoided at all costs.

no doubt dada i was totally against the kargil misadventures & i outrightly condemn musharraf for it, the Lahore declaration should have been given time as i highly believed that given the chance nawaz sharif & atal bihari vajpayee could have opened the doors for an indo-pak south asia which would have been a true blessings for all of us

 

[Raje amar]

Not exactly. What you term as military "buildup" for us is actually modernization that was due since 90s. At that time we had a dumpy economy and Russia was in a shytestorm so we couldn't modernize.



You must understand that any nuclear strike whether standard or "tactical" as you call it, would throw open the nuclear threshold for any form of retaliation in same or greater measure. You're not the first one thinking of tactical nukes, since former world powers have also thought and abandoned such plans. A nuke is a nuke whether 2t or 200 mt in power.



Naturally. If the GOI doesn't retaliate in that fashion (seeing this conflict itself being a form of retaliation), that government will be skinned alive by the military and the people. During combat operations, the armed forces can say NO to the government under extreme situations. This is one reason why the GOI doesn't conduct war; greedy politicians fear that the military would taste blood of power to say NO to any damn rubbish the government dodos throw at them.



Nukes are deterrence for us. We don't intend to use it unless someone has really lost his mind and plans to threaten our national survival. Wars will be conventional and it will be tiny and rapid conflicts unlike the years of fighting like in WW2.

No nation would take any "strong step" today if there is military tension. Maximum a negotiation request would be made by a nation willing to mediate as diplomats. Nothing more.

Besides, we aren't crazy enough to attack you and slow down our economy, unless you're cuckoo enough to cause another Mumbai attack.



Only if another major jihadi attack (goodness forbid) happens in India. Otherwise, we don't want to waste time and money over wars.



I told you, anything that has to do with nuclear weapons would throw open the threshold for retaliation to any limitation. Even your most fanatic of general won't consider a nuclear option. If you read carefully, COLD START was never a land grabbing strategy. It was a punitive strategy aimed at causing similar damage to any that is planned against India. That's all.

very well said.
nuke i like curse it may punish the opponent but dont let you either.

 

[IHK_PK]

OH DEAR OH DEAR...... SO U PEOPLE STILL THINK THAT MUMBAI ATTACKS WERE PLANNED BY PAKISTAN...... WHEN AN INDIAN OFFICER HIMSELF TOLD THE STORY BEHIND .... INDIAN'S HIMSELF PLANNED/CONDUCTED IT. WHAT ELSE PROOF U STILL NEED?????