Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices

[Chogy]

One other way to look at it... the tension between Pakistan and India is NOT greater than that which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The threat of strategic nuclear retaliation prevented a conventional war in Europe for 40 years. That cannot be proven, but I think it is an opinion with a sound foundation. Given India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, I think the chances of MAJOR war between the two powers is LESS likely. There'll be friction and skirmishes, but would either State risk an all-out conventional attack?

 

[bubble123]

We can ignore it for the discussion, but the importance of the nuclear threshhold in politics and war is enormous!



Can tactical nukes win a battle that would otherwise be lost? Possibly, yes. But one needs to consider what will happen to your own troops in the area. Nukes are horribly imprecise. One should apply the correct amount of force to destroy a target. Consider an armored column. Yes, it'd be a juicy target for a 1 kt nuke. It could also be destroyed by an aircraft like the A-10, by artillery, or by JDAM types of iron bombs.



Everyone's opinion is different. Consider that STRATEGIC nuclear weapons hold an enemy hostage... "If your armored attack succeeds and Pakistan is going to fall, we WILL lash out with our arsenal and obliterate two dozen major cities. Do you really want to continue your attack?" This works when you have a rational enemy, and despite what people here say both Pakistan and India are rational. So are the USA, Russia, China, and the other nuclear powers.

I'd say the threat of strategic nuclear attack in response to a devastating conventional invasion is more forceful than tactically nuking the invading forces themselves... and it is much easier to control, and less likely to be accidentally triggered.

So in your scenario, I'd suggest a "message" be sent.... "Stand down, back off, or we WILL use our strategic arsenal." If the message instead was a 1 kiloton tactical nuke over an armored column, the only message that'd send would be "We've crossed the nuclear line... go ahead and retaliate with your own nukes."

It's a difficult question that's been debated for decades.

lol. what u point out is a dilemma and a big bluff at the same time.

But consider this most of the armored action in Indo-Pak case would be in the deserts of southern punjab,sindh and rajishtan. These deserts don't have any population and are of negligible value. So what about using a juicy small nuke in our own territory to stop the attack. That way don't u think that India would be double minded that whether to retaliate or not because first the nuke is small and second it is in our own territory ?

and what about some type of nukes that don't spew radiation are there any ?

 

[bubble123]

One other way to look at it... the tension between Pakistan and India is NOT greater than that which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The threat of strategic nuclear retaliation prevented a conventional war in Europe for 40 years. That cannot be proven, but I think it is an opinion with a sound foundation. Given India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, I think the chances of MAJOR war between the two powers is LESS likely. There'll be friction and skirmishes, but would either State risk an all-out conventional attack?

but don't u think that Indian cold start doctrine was specifically designed to address this issue. Somehow they will manage to knockout our air assets in 72 hours. while our doctrine clearly states that in case of one arm of services being destroyed nukes would be used. Don't u think that this means India is playing with fire.

 

[mautkimaut]

One other way to look at it... the tension between Pakistan and India is NOT greater than that which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The threat of strategic nuclear retaliation prevented a conventional war in Europe for 40 years. That cannot be proven, but I think it is an opinion with a sound foundation. Given India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, I think the chances of MAJOR war between the two powers is LESS likely. There'll be friction and skirmishes, but would either State risk an all-out conventional attack?

pakistan's entire retaliation is based on nuclear attack..they will attack within 3 days of battle..since they know that within three days they would lose a lot of assets

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------

lol. what u point out is a dilemma and a big bluff at the same time.

But consider this most of the armored action in Indo-Pak case would be in the deserts of southern punjab,sindh and rajishtan. These deserts don't have any population and are of negligible value. So what about using a juicy small nuke in our own territory to stop the attack. That way don't u think that India would be double minded that whether to retaliate or not because first the nuke is small and second it is in our own territory ?

and what about some type of nukes that don't spew radiation are there any ?

there are no nukes which dont give off any radiation... period

India's doctrine clearly says if you attack on Indian soldiers anywhere we will give a massive response

 

[Pakistanisage]

One other way to look at it... the tension between Pakistan and India is NOT greater than that which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The threat of strategic nuclear retaliation prevented a conventional war in Europe for 40 years. That cannot be proven, but I think it is an opinion with a sound foundation. Given India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, I think the chances of MAJOR war between the two powers is LESS likely. There'll be friction and skirmishes, but would either State risk an all-out conventional attack?

The days of Indo-Pak conventional war are long over. Pakistan will never attack India in an all out war and continue to bleed India with proxy wars. Indians are more bluster and there is no substance in their rhetoric and chest beating. If they had the round objects of human anatomy, they would have attacked after Mumbai Attack. Pakistan has firmed up their defensive position and even though Indians have a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, any misadventure on their part would cost them steeply with no possible gain. In the end if attacked, Pakistan has no compulsion to go nuclear as a first strike and India knows that. This is enough of a deterrent to discourage India from having any crazy ideas.

 

[punisher]

The days of Indo-Pak conventional war are long over. Pakistan will never attack India in an all out war and continue to bleed India with proxy wars. Indians are more bluster and there is no substance in their rhetoric and chest beating. If they had the round objects of human anatomy, they would have attacked after Mumbai Attack. Pakistan has firmed up their defensive position and even though Indians have a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, any misadventure on their part would cost them steeply with no possible gain. In the end if attacked, Pakistan has no compulsion to go nuclear as a first strike and India knows that. This is enough of a deterrent to discourage India from having any crazy ideas.

another warmonger. you didn't even learn a lesson from 1971 war and kargil. where we sliced into two.

 

[mautkimaut]

The days of Indo-Pak conventional war are long over. Pakistan will never attack India in an all out war and continue to bleed India with proxy wars. Indians are more bluster and there is no substance in their rhetoric and chest beating. If they had the round objects of human anatomy, they would have attacked after Mumbai Attack. Pakistan has firmed up their defensive position and even though Indians have a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, any misadventure on their part would cost them steeply with no possible gain. In the end if attacked, Pakistan has no compulsion to go nuclear as a first strike and India knows that. This is enough of a deterrent to discourage India from having any crazy ideas.

well you killed 150 indians in mumbai . if your politicians are to be believed, we killed 1000 in 2010 itself through RAW..

who is your daddy now?

 

[MZUBAIR]

Small Nukes can destroy enemie units....may effect limited areas as well radtioans.

 

[W.11]

well you killed 150 indians in mumbai . if your politicians are to be believed, we killed 1000 in 2010 itself through RAW..

who is your daddy now?

150 is minus the kashmiri struggle

btw its great to admit the terrorism, we are not doing it alone

 

[Rang De]

The days of Indo-Pak conventional war are long over. Pakistan will never attack India in an all out war and continue to bleed India with proxy wars. Indians are more bluster and there is no substance in their rhetoric and chest beating. If they had the round objects of human anatomy, they would have attacked after Mumbai Attack. Pakistan has firmed up their defensive position and even though Indians have a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, any misadventure on their part would cost them steeply with no possible gain. In the end if attacked, Pakistan has no compulsion to go nuclear as a first strike and India knows that. This is enough of a deterrent to discourage India from having any crazy ideas.

Great you admit that you cannot do anything else then sending terrorist to kill unarmed people at a railway station and hotels. 'Fighting' isn't your forte, surrendering is. You have plenty of experience, and pakistani army knows fully well how to surrender.

but don't u think that Indian cold start doctrine was specifically designed to address this issue. Somehow they will manage to knockout our air assets in 72 hours. while our doctrine clearly states that in case of one arm of services being destroyed nukes would be used. Don't u think that this means India is playing with fire.

It's most likely that future wars will be short & fast, Cold start is for such wars. It will help us in both offence and defence. Offence, is not likely.. we ain't gonna attack first. Covert attack will be responded coverty.

 

[Mav3rick]

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was fabricated? Oh Reaallly?

The US Govt. planned the whole drama, asking Saddam to invade Kuwait uselessly to get a chance to sit permanently in Kuwait & Saudi Arabia! Not speaking the truth is one thing but denying the obvious is so bloody damn typical of Americans!!!

And today the whole world knows how the US treats those who oppose them but shouldn't the world also know how the US treats those who favor them, once these allies lose power, from the Shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein!

 

[Mav3rick]

another warmonger. you didn't even learn a lesson from 1971 war and kargil. where we sliced into two.

1971 was an internal matter but Pakistan would not have interfered in India's internal matter if the situation was reversed. Kargil was a rape that will haunt you regardless of what you say.

 

[Tshering22]

Wonder what is the point of a nuke like that because ANY nuke used whether small or big has the same protocols of retaliation. I tis simply wasting time and money to soothe political and military ego.

 

[notorious_eagle]

pakistan's entire retaliation is based on nuclear attack..they will attack within 3 days of battle..since they know that within three days they would lose a lot of assets

How did you reach this conclusion? Is there any research or thought process behind this premise?

If you think Pakistan's nuclear threshold is 3 days of battle, you could not be more wrong. Pakistan's nuclear threshold is quite simple, if IA Armour reaches N5 high way and cut Pakistan into two, the nuclear threshold has been crossed. Looking at the balance of power between both the countries, i find it hard to believe that IA Armour can cut Pakistan into two in three days. To overwhelm a nation like Pakistan, India needs absolute fire power superiority over Pakistan. At present India does not possess this superiority, thus your analysis could not be be more wrong.

there are no nukes which dont give off any radiation... period

India's doctrine clearly says if you attack on Indian soldiers anywhere we will give a massive response

It is up to India whether she risks nuclear annihilation over an Armour Column or not. Policies and procedures are all fine and dandy, but i find it hard to believe that rational Indian war planners will risk the nuclear annihilation of entire South Asia over an Armour Column that gets nuked inside Pakistan.

well you killed 150 indians in mumbai . if your politicians are to be believed, we killed 1000 in 2010 itself through RAW..

who is your daddy now?

How did we kill 150 Indians in Mumbai? This is absolutely rubbish, there is no proof to suggest that the gunmen were in anyway supported by the State of Pakistan. They were stateless terrorists whom devised their plan on their own without any support from the State of Pakistan.

 

[A1Kaid]

One other way to look at it... the tension between Pakistan and India is NOT greater than that which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The threat of strategic nuclear retaliation prevented a conventional war in Europe for 40 years. That cannot be proven, but I think it is an opinion with a sound foundation. Given India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, I think the chances of MAJOR war between the two powers is LESS likely. There'll be friction and skirmishes, but would either State risk an all-out conventional attack?

This is a good outlook however I think it depends on the government or administrations of both nations. Meaning if a hawkish administration were to come to power in either country that could immerse the region in the nuclear threshold. In Pakistan's case not just civilian leadership but military, though in spite a hawkish power I don't think
sanity would be compromised. This doesn't mean I support a no-first-use policy.