This is what I have been trying to tell you that its Pakistan's sense of insecurity and fear of loosing a conventional war that we have more nukes. It is the fear, the sense of insecurity that has made us build more nuclear weapons than India and the similar conventional gap exists between Russia and USA and which is Russia's reason of having more nuclear weans. Regarding conventional weapon scenario, let me address in the second part.
You and I both agree that there is a conventional superiority(atleast on paper) that India have over Pakistan..However what i am saying is that even with your current arsenal India will not dare to attack you.... Let me be more candid.....We would not like to loose mumbai even if we manage to take over whole of Pakistan...same is true for you....You would not like to loose Karachi for whole of India....because the cost paid to wipe your enemy is too much to bear....You having more nuclear weapons can only deter India from launching a first nuclear strike on you which is true even with 100 weapons...so IMO in my mind more nuclear weapons may give your establishment more sense of security but practically they will not make any difference....Your current arsenal is enough to take care of India launching a full fledge war on you....
Pakistan is not at parity with India on conventional defense capability. Do we agree?
Yes we do....
Having less chances to win a conventional war, we are least likely to wage a war upon India.
No not really....You did wage a war i.e. Kargil...In other words limited conflict under nuclear umbrella....
Regarding Kargil, do you realize how close both the countries were from utilizing their nuclear weapons upon each other?
Not sure IMO because the general whose video you just shared in response to Karan's post himself said that Pakistan was not in a position to launch nuclear weapon at that time...Secondly launching vs mobillizing missiles is different though a very risky proposition...If indeed those reports were true and Mushi must have lost his nuts and bolts...Really one can't do much if premier of one's country(India or Pak) has lost it...
Why have you presumed that in the next conventional war, both the countries will settle the matters like they did in Kargil or any country will let the other country win the war and would not use Nukes because that is being fought with conventional ammunition?
IMO i am not assuming anything....What i am saying is that unless and until nuclear threshold is not reached Pak or India are not going to use nuclear weapons..Give me this much buddy...there is a difference between Countries and Terrorists...Now all i am saying is that even if you have 200 nukes against lets say India's 80(though it can't be true) yet your worries about conventional weapon's will not go....Let me give you a hypothetical scenario....
Just assume India's claims about AAD and PAD are correct and we have a fool proof BMD system....In such a scenario if India chose to go for surgical strikes on terrorist camps in *** in retaliation to yet another terrorist attack in India what do you think your establishment will do???
- Nuke India??? - One has to be nuts to use nukes over this....
- Ensure that such a disparity never occurs and thus mass produce more BM,CM to overwhelm india's BMD system...
There is no lairing in wars and no mile-stone which when crossed, the war will become Nuclear. Any future battle between India and Pakistan will nevertheless end up at Nuclear Conflict and India knows that pretty well and this was understanding on part of India that it refrained crossing the intentional border in 2001 and again on 26/11, even when it knows it has a conventional superiority over Pakistan.
There is no deny the fact that any future war b/w India and Pak which leads to existential threat of other will lead to nuclear conflict...The only other scenario would be if one party makes a wrong calculation and assume a conventional missile to be a nuclear one....As far as India reason for not attacking Pakistan is concerned then there are many reasons apart from Nukes
- Obviously there is a risk of escalation of conflict which can go nuclear.
- This will be a major setback to our ambitions to become economic superpower and all the hard work we have done will go away
- We are playing a catching game with China and any war would mean that game is over for good...
Now let me ask you a question....At the time of 2003 there was a common understanding that India has more nukes than Pakistan....We still did not choose to attack...Does that vindicate my stand that even your current arsenal is enough to deter any attack by India???? I am not going into history and asking when did India attack you because i know that at least in an average Pakistani mind this notion is there that India would attack...though they completely ignore that if India did not attack when Pakistan was weak(conventionally with no nukes) why the heck they would attack now when Pakistan is a nuclear country.....
I do not think Pakistan needs to match every Indian move or develop counter conventional potential for every potential India develops. BUT we need every mean that will make sure our Nukes get delivered and the Nuclear attack from our side is completed without any interception in the way.
I think you need both....As far as nukes are concerned you have enough but you definitely need to keep an edge on conventional front....For example you cannot let India field and F22 and think your f-16 is enough because you have nukes...I believe you are definitely ensuring both things...Another example would be India - China scenario....China have much bigger(Payload) nukes than us....Definitely more nukes than us...however what we are trying to do is to fill our conventional gaps because IMO believe it or not nukes are last option....they can never be first...
"
