You may want to research more . Because the basic idea of " Cold Start " is nothing new to the Indian Army , being first tested in its crudest form during Op.Brasstacks itself .I know the " improved " upon Cold Start is a recent addition and somehow appears to have gone " cold " due to the recent developments on the other side - not only factoring in the " specific missile " .
Opreration Brasstacks had nothing even remotely in common with cold start. Op Brasstacks was one massive movement of armor and mechanized infantry(400, 000 soldiers) across the deserts of Rajasthan..Multiple army corps were involved and were all present in single theater.
Where as Cold start breaks a single strike corps into smaller IBGs for faster deployment, to present a smaller target for TNW (as oppose to an entire corps) and to hit the enemy multiple fronts simultaneously, while pivot corps carry out offensive defense against the enemy.
Cold Start is exactly the opposite of Operation Brasstacks.
Unlike the Indian nuclear doctrine which recently added " the attack on any Indian forces anywhere "
There are no 'recent' additions to Indian nuclear doctrine.It has remained unchanged since its inception. The clause of 'attack on any Indian forces anywhere' has been there since the beginning, when it was formally adopted by cabinet committee in security in 2003.
, the Pakistani one hasn't changed and been quite consistent from the beginning . Pakistan doesn't guarantee that it will not attack any country if its " thresholds " which remain " largely unclear " or " unknown " are crossed . Since no other side has dared to invade Pakistan and no " red lines " have been crossed until now after the testing of " first nuke " - which isn't Chagai I or II , there's no reverse logic that applies here .
Pakistani nuclear doctrine in ambiguous, even to its own ilk, which is not exactly a good thing in case of real emergency. How would one know if a red line has been crossed, when you don't even know, where the red line lies?
On the other hand , India has chosen not to test Islamabad's resolve at least four times now since date , which speaks volumes of the success of Pakistani " deterrence " .
You aim test Indian patience by strapping a bomb to your vest, In hopes that your suicidal behavior will make Indians back down, speaks volume about your psyche!!
If you did , you wouldn't have made a comment that India can somehow perform a sort of " decapitation strike " and still get away " unscathed " and somehow win a " nuclear war " - a fallacy in itself since there are no winners . Pakistan still has sparely populated - desert and mountainous areas in which these nukes or all terrain TELs can be successfully dispersed which makes for a robust " second strike capability " - something the Americans have hinted at , from a long time ago .
The completion of the " nuclear triad " isn't far away whilst you only have one nuclear submarine for now , which cant be on patrol at sea at all times . You are choosing a wrong example here , nothing between India and Pakistan is comparable to that of U.S and the now defunct U.S.S.R. since their stockpiles , yields , delivery systems and second strike capability were more advanced than you think . We are neither that far away from each other nor have the technological capability to early detect and strike as both country used to have and still do .
What are you assuming here ? That they have to brought from some far far away land to one central location to be mated and launched ?
It is generally thought that the Strategic Forces Command can bring its weapons to a " launch " state in a 5-7 minutes window , in emergency times/crisis . So it isn't , if getting ready for a nuclear strike would take hours or days for Islamabad , the time window will not exceed any more than 10 minutes .
You are wrong!!
A decapitating first strike is far more plausible in India- Pakistan scenario, than it would have been US- Soviet scenario.
It would have taken an ICBM 20-40 mins(depending on location of launch and target ) to reach their intended target in mainland US, American early waning stations of arctic and Greenland and Aleutian Islands would give at least 20 mins warning of missile strike. American global satellite sys would pick up a missile flare as soon as missile would launch. Giving US essentially more than 30 mins to launch it own missiles..yet American chose to have massive second strike capabilities, like deploying majority of its weapons on SLBMs and 24/7 airborne strategic nuclear bombers..why??
Whereas flying time from India to Pakistan is less than 5 mins..Early warning radar will not even give 2-3 mins warning before impact. It is not humanly possible to assemble, programme and launch a missile in this window unless first two steps are already taken care of . It is theoretically possible to wipe out or enough enemy land based arsenal if enough weapons are launched in first strike.
@
AhaseebA As for the usual " accidentally setting off " or " terrorists launching nukes " , save it for Funny threads , not the stuff that is relevant here anyways .
Are you that ignorant , that you don't even know the reason, why India and Pakistan chose to keep their and warheads and missiles separately??!!
May I know just how many weapons can be launched from " sea " in one go , taking into account the current Indian capability ? Does the number exceed even five ?
No .
Yes it does, Arihant alone can launch a dozen one tonne nuclear warheads. In addition some Indian Naval surface ships have been modified to launch Ballistic missiles(eg Dhanush and Prithvi 2), mostly for testing purposes. But that does not mean they can not be used to launch the real thing. Before the end of this decade, two more SSBNs will be launched, taking the number to 36 SLBMs.
How do you plan on taking out that percent of the Pakistani arsenal if I may know ? What intelligence do you have about the location of the nuclear weapons and the launch sites anyways ? Why exactly has it already been done then ? I remember the Indians were quite desperate to attack Islamabad during Op.Parakram .
Do you think intelligence agencies are there to just twiddle their thumbs, do you know why, a couple of years ago, your govt got paranoid enough fearing a nuclear snatch and seize operation and moved all its warheads to different locations.
If exact location of warheads/missiles are known then one will not need to launch nuclear strike to take them out..precision strike can do the job. Only when general location of warheads or missile is known or the missile is sitting in its silo.. decapitating.nuclear strikes are considered.
What then if not the nuclear threat caused them to back away since they know more than us and would have factored in , all that stuff . If it were to work like that and EMP would be that efficient to prevent " missile launches " , that would have been done long time ago by either side or during the Cold War .
EMP effect all electronic devices, that are not protected against it, may that be microchips in your missles or transitor in the comm equipment. Infact American have invested heavily in EMP protection as well as EMP generators.
An EMP can delay the launch by frying the circuitry and not all together stop it,,Once the damaged part is changed, the electronic is a good as new. But even changing these complex circuits will take hours, if not days, and I thought we were talking 'minutes'.
So , how many " weapons " are enough as per you to dent Pakistan's capabilities to counter strike ? I said even if 50% of Pakistani arsenal survives ( which means around 60 ready to go " nukes " ) , they would be enough to cause " unacceptable damage " to the adversary and that thing isn't hard to understand looking at your most populous cities . You still have a lot to learn about your " adversary " or " Pakistan's nuclear capabilities " before assuming things that make no sense .
Depending on the number of location you have stored your weapons in addition to nuclear enrichment plants, major bases.. I am not the right person to do the guessing, rest assured there are people in both countries figuring out the same.
Yeah , something yet to be proven whilst on the other hand , you have a complete history of the " enemy " standing at the gates but ordered not to " cross " it .
Ok , just tell them then not to cross the border and risk the entire Indian population then . If you hadn't cared , wouldn't you have crossed the borders ?
Four times and counting !
And if you stop supporting terrorist and stop mounting doomed misadventure like Kargil, we would'nt have to cross the border in first place.
