What's new

Pakistan and the Nasr Missile :: Searching for a Method in the Madness

it will be only used in pakistan territory ,if used in indian territory u declaring nuclear war with india this will mean no stopping ,so think before saying all these things , also should teach ur politician and defence expert as its no joke using a nuclear bomb , as these politician will survive in bunkers ,only people die will be civilian
A war between Pakistan and India is most likely going nuclear.
As for the part no joke of nuclear bomb, due you think a conventional war is a joke, or ceasefire violation casuality is a joke?
Dude in war,mostly civilians are affected.
We want peace but when you go in war with a nuclear state, there is most likely chances of it going nuclear.
 
.
Albeit nuclear capable but it can also be armed to rain cluster type munitions on enemy formations.
Place it within five Km inside Pakistan and it will hit targets 50 Km inside hostile territory and check the brief footage as how it scores bullseye by striking the target area designated by flags.


You can do that far more cheaply using guided munitions from MBRLs.Ballistic missiles are costly for conventional use.
LACMs are also cheaper than ballistic missiles and just as accurate.
 
.
A war between Pakistan and India is most likely going nuclear.
As for the part no joke of nuclear bomb, due you think a conventional war is a joke, or ceasefire violation casuality is a joke?
Dude in war,mostly civilians are affected.
We want peace but when you go in war with a nuclear state, there is most likely chances of it going nuclear.

then who will decide to use nuclear weapon people in bunker or people on ground
 
.
ATTENTION ATTENTION
THESE ARE NOT FIRE CRACKER SO THINK BEFORE DO ANYTHING STUPID


ATTENTION ATTENTION
THESE ARE NOT FIRE CRACKER SO THINK BEFORE DO ANYTHING STUPID
While telling this, also tell us that do not let two nuclear countries armies attempt to start a war.
 
.
Actually it is.Its to counter cold start.Cold start envisages fast limited push inside pak territory by IBGs to capture territory as bargaining chip.

Limited War

Inspired by the bellicose nature of his prime minister, the Indian army chief has threatened Pakistan with punitive action in the form of limited war for waging a so-called proxy war against India. Apart from his misplaced confidence in his army, the Pakistan Army’s commitment on the western front could also have encouraged him. The unprovoked firing and shelling across the Working Boundary and the Line of Control could well be the prelude to starting a limited war.

Limited war is a geographically confined conflict short of general war in which the political aim, space, time and the weapons used are limited. According to André Beaufre, a French strategist, “Limited wars are a sort of tough negotiations”.

Limited war can be categorised as insurrectional and non-insurrectional. The former, basically a guerilla war, was fought by the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, by the erstwhile Soviet Union in Afghanistan, is being fought by India in India-held Kashmir, its seven north–eastern states and 14 states dominated by Naxalites, by Pakistan in Fata and outside it, and by Afghanistan against the Afghan Taliban. Examples of the latter are the Indo-Pak wars and the Arab-Israel wars. However, if during the non-insurrectional war, the geographical limitation is lifted, limited war would be transformed into general war.

The other differences between the two categories are that the insurrectional war is not geographically confined, and is not conditioned by time for the guerillas. Therefore, unless the counter-guerilla forces crush the guerilla forces within a year, the war tends to drag on for years, which makes the soldiers vulnerable to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

India’s war directors must question their commanders’ ability.
In the aftermath of the 10-month standoff fiasco in 2001 the Indian army developed a limited war doctrine called Cold Start to respond to what it calls proxy war by Pakistan. The essence of this doctrine is transferring the army’s offensive power from the three strike corps to eight division-sized integrated battle groups (IBGs) who would be positioned close to the border so that three to five are launched within 72 to 96 hours after mobilisation is ordered.

Patterned on Israeli army’s concept of task forces, Cold Start envisages high-speed operations to achieve the objectives in the desired time and space framework. Therefore, since a non-insurrectional limited war is conditioned by time, the matching of physical means of mobility with the mobility of mind assumes critical importance, for, commanders whose minds are characterised by lack of enterprise, imagination, flexibility and initiative, can reduce the value of a highly mobile force to zero.

In the 1965 war, despite its overwhelming numerical superiority, the Indian strike corps (1 Corps) penetrated some 11 kilometres only in Sialkot sector in 21 days, while in 1971 the same corps, though reinforced, penetrated approximately 13 km in 14 days, that too when it was opposed by light covering troops. In both wars the Indian army was schematic in its operations. Changes in dispositions, reassigning of objectives, switching of forces not in accordance with their original plans took time.

The following comments by Indian generals also highlight the weaknesses of their army: Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, Commander Western Command in 1965, in his book War Despatches wrote “In XI Corps there was a sickening repetition of command failures”. “In 1 Corps the guiding hand of the corps commander was conspicuously absent…. leading to a dismal failure at lower levels.” Maj Gen Niranjan Prasad, GOC 15 Division in 1965, sacked on Sep 7, in his captured war diary said: “There is no deep thinking in the Indian army…. there is a cheap attitude to underestimate the enemy and to show off one’s own toughness to his superiors.” Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh, DDMO in 1971, in his book Defence of the Western Border wrote: “The generals who led the Indian army [in 1971] on the western front had no concept of conducting a short war”.

The Indian war directors must question the ability of their commanders at all levels to conduct high-speed operations with flexibility, rapidity and less military routine.

Despite the weaknesses demonstrated by the Indian army in 1965 and 1971, the Pakistan Army does not underestimate their war potential. They could launch an operation in southern Pakistan to split Pakistan in two, and another operation in Ravi-Chenab corridor to acquire depth for their vulnerable line of communication that connects the Indian mainland with Jammu and Kashmir.

However, the fact is that the army here can occupy its wartime locations much earlier than the Indian army confers on it the ability to pre-empt any Indian effort. Suffice it to say that the reorganised force has multiplied its capability to devastate the Indian army’s IBGs or strike corps in their assembly areas by powerful massed fires.

If the Indian army chief still decides to start a limited war, his country would have to pay dearly for his error of judgement.

The writer is a former armour and SSG officer.

Published in Dawn, September 21st, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
 
.
then who will decide to use nuclear weapon people in bunker or people on ground
I do not think most people on either side can answer your question. The best way to find out is to wait for a war and if you survive, you might find the answer. I do not know whether atleast out army leadership will hide in bunker because the latter does not prove this.
Bhai chill, we need not worry who decides or not , but we need to worry whether having war with Pakistan a good option.
 
.
I guess shoot and scoot tactics by conventional and rocket artillery and IAF's sensor fuzed weaponry is the answer.
 
.
Ok let’s do some math instead of jingoism.

For a max 5kt warhead (max 5kt warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 kt) blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km which is going to affect armored vehicles.

Integrated Combat Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.

How many nukes would be required to destroy one CG? 25 Nasrs.

Initial strike with 10 -15 combat groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.

Minimum battlefield nukes needed to destroy the CGs > 250 Nasrs!

That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! Remember, all tanks and personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.

So, going a step further, 250x5 kt =1250 kt ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!)

What would be left of Eastern Pakistan? You tell me!

It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face!
 
.
Ok let’s do some math instead of jingoism.

For a max 5kt warhead (max 5kt warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 kt) blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km which is going to affect armored vehicles.

Integrated Combat Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.

How many nukes would be required to destroy one CG? 25 Nasrs.

Initial strike with 10 -15 combat groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.

Minimum battlefield nukes needed to destroy the CGs > 250 Nasrs!

That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! Remember, all tanks and personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.

So, going a step further, 250x5 kt =1250 kt ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!)

What would be left of Eastern Pakistan? You tell me!

It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face!
The concept of force multipliers goes above your head it seems. Allow me to educate you:

1. Nasr doesn't need to completely destroy intruding forces, it just needs to soften them up enough to let the Pak Fauj wipe them out. In all your assumptions, you are thinking there are no Pakistani ground forces on the ground. Mind you, the ratio of Indian army to Pakistani army is 2:1, which is not a huge advantage. Fighting the 6th largest military in the world while under fire from tactical nukes is no kids play.

2. Cold Start's objective is to make fast thrusts and capture territory. If the Indians fear the Nasr, and spread their forces to lessen its impact, they are effectively eroding their numerical advantage on the ground, since a smaller number of tanks, soldiers will be directly facing the Pak Fauj. In essence, by spreading their forces out over a very large area, they are literally negating the objective they set out to achieve. That is to gain territory through fast mobilization and overwhelming numbers.

Either way, its a win-win situation for Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
. .
Even if pak fires 10 nasr on indian CG what is going to left of east pak in future after the radiation spreads.
 
.
This missile is a suicide weapon,firing a nuke inside pakistani territory in the heart of pakistan's agricultural bread basket of punjab and irradiating the soil/water =catastrophe.Even taking out the question of indian nuclear response.

who says Pakistan developed this missile for Punjab side? This missile is specefically for That/Rajhastan desert areas. We have adequate measures to stop Indian advance in conventional terms at Punjab Kashmir border. Gap exists at Rajhstan/Thar desert borders
 
. .
The concept of force multipliers goes above your head it seems. Allow me to educate you:

1. Nasr doesn't need to completely destroy intruding forces, it just needs to soften them up enough to let the Pak Fauj wipe them out. In all your assumptions, you are thinking there are no Pakistani ground forces on the ground. Mind you, the ratio of Indian army to Pakistani army is 2:1, which is not a huge advantage. Fighting the 6th largest military in the world while under fire from tactical nukes is no kids play.

You send your fauji into radiations environment ? Moreover , Most of Indian Armoured are already NBC ready.
Forget what will happen when India will launch MRBM's more then 60 KM away ?

2. Cold Start's objective is to make fast thrusts and capture territory. If the Indians fear the Nasr, and spread their forces to lessen its impact, they are effectively eroding their numerical advantage on the ground, since a smaller number of tanks, soldiers will be directly facing the Pak Fauj. In essence, by spreading their forces out over a very large area, they are literally negating the objective they set out to achieve. That is to gain territory through fast mobilization and overwhelming numbers.

Either way, its a win-win situation for Pakistan.

Well dont you think MRLBL's and Guns will ponder your formations? What will happen if NASAR get destroyed before , because they are supposed to be within 60 KM radius . A commando Strike team or Air attack/ MRBL's/ GUN can wipe or take most of NASAR system before head.

Do not forget about unmanned plane
 
.
Who said it will be used inside Pakistan. Most probably, it will be stationed near border and stop the enemy on the other side to march inside Pakistan.

And with a range of mere 60 kms,do you really think this 'wonder weapon' will survive Indian artillery and air strikes for even a minute??The moment the Indian forces find these out,which they surely will,these Nasr batteries or whatever will be subjected to concentrated fire assaults by both IA and IAF and the missiles will be blown sky-high.Basically there ain't a single scenario,where PA can deploy these things within close proximity to the borders and hope to save them too.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom