'Pakistan's Nasr missile is the most dangerous development in South Asia'

[Abdullah S.]

Hi,

Welcome to the board. You never use nuc's in your territory---whomsoever has given you that information---has given you the wrong information.

They will be used on the opposing forces that are within 5 miles to 50 miles from our border---which mean if a phalanx of enemy troops breaks thru the critical quadrant---everything else coming in behind would be neutralized on the other side of the border.

If what you're saying is true then what is the need for a conventional army anymore other than for glorified police operations inside the country? Why are we constantly upgrading our conventional forces to match India? Why are we going for new versions of AlKhalid's and 155 mm artillery among other things?

In my opinion the reason is clear; we intend to fight a conventional battle as long as we can and in case that doesn't work out too well for us then Nasr will come into play. A tactical nuke like Nasr, which is most probably a neutron bomb design, will leave most of the infrastructure intact and would obliterate enemy forces without leaving lethal amounts of radiation behind. I can well imagine a scenario where Indians make a beeline for Lahore and despite our best conventional efforts they reach inside 10-15 km of Pakistani territory, then all hell would break loose on the Indians columns in the form of Nasr. In this scenario even after using tactical nukes the world would not be able to condemn us because we would have used tactical nukes on the attacking army inside our own borders for defensive purposes. The entire blame of this catastrophe would fall on India.

Now seeing as Nasr is a tactical nuke, throwing Nasr on the enemy won't mean that the battle is over. I mean Indians are not that stupid that they would barge into Pakistan in huge numbers in closely packed formations to become target practice for Nasr. They would at most have 10-20 tanks in a 1 mile radius to avoid the lethal effects of Nasr on their entire attacking force. The same tactic was adopted by the Warsaw Pact after the development of tactical nuke by the US. See here:

"Indeed, a large-scale Warsaw Pact invasion would have involved something like 20,000 tanks. And those tanks would not be conveniently deployed in closely-packed formations. Surveillance of Warsaw Pact field exercises suggested that no more than 10 to 20 tanks would likely be within the effective area of a single weapon. Western forces, therefore, would have to detonate hundreds of neutron bombs."

I cant post the link because I need 29 posts for that but the above has been taken from a US report on tactical nukes.

Would we have 100s of Nasr to be fired upon the attacking force? Can you imagine us dropping a cumulative of 100kt of nuclear weapons on the advancing Indian forces in the form of tactical nukes? I don't think so. I think at the end there would have to be a conventional fight to keep the enemy at bay even after tactical nukes have been used. So in essence I think even the tactical nukes would be more of a scare tactic and a warning shot for the entire world to jump in and end the Indian madness before it finds itself in a nuclear winter.

I guess I've answered my own question in this reply.

 

[Andy Sandy]

The imbalance created between India and Pakistan due to the Indo-U.S nuclear agreement, coupled with their strategic partnership with the U.S. in various technological and scientific fields, has created a new security situation in South Asia. Pakistan has limited economic strength and military capabilities compared to its historical rival. The asymmetric nature of their conventional and non-conventional military forces has created a disparity in their strategic relationship. Moreover during the past decade and a half, Indian policymakers, along with its military leadership, have devised a new strategy that envisions and enables a limited war by conducting surgical strikes on Pakistan. Induction of NASR missile is to restrict Indian military adventurism. Cold Start doctrine is not only a triggering factor for Pakistan's tactical nuclear move but also a provocative threat which will keep Pakistan on its heels irrespective of Indian lame justifications.

 

[salarsikander]

I am 100% sure that Pakistan will denuclearize before we reach the halfway mark in this century. Lilliputians cant keep Gulliver indefinitely.

Hi,

Is that a mental masturbation or a genuine understanding based around facts and figures ?

 

[Paksanity]

I'm amazed by some of our Indian comments here. I mean CSD was fake campaign just to trick our policy makers?? Give me break here, will ya? Our policy makers are so naive, you mean to tell, that they can't figure out security threats and formulate response themselves but they are good enough to keep India at bay with 7 time lesser defence budget!!

Pakistan policy has been to deter aggression from India. First line of that policy is international politics and diplomacy. Second is conventional forces. Third WAS strategic nuclear weapons which now have been moved to fourth place with tactical nukes (Nasr) coming in third place.

Now before we discuss how useful or useless Nasr is, an important question needs to be asked; was their nuclear parity between Ind-Pak before Nasr appeared on scene? Answer is yes. Pakistan's nuclear assets were enough to deter an Indian agression (please recall 1999). So whether India responds to whatever after Nasr, it doesn't change much. Pakistan will respond with equal nuclear force. Nasr didn't come at the expense of strategic deterrent. It came as a mean to stop Pakistan from going that way as a first option. That option remains nevertheless. Should India choose to go nuclear all out after Nasr, so shall we, but this time with a bit higher moral ground. For someone not aware of shame and blame of being first to use nuclear devices on cities with innocent citizens, please read up more on subject. Nasr is what it is, like all other tools to defend and secure a nation. First a deterrent then a measured response against aggression and lastly a tool to reveal India's bullying face to its neighbours, should it come to that. If India uses nukes on cities of Pakistan in response to tactical nukes on aggressing Indian forces inside Pakistan territory, not only will it get equal response on its cities, it will also loose its chance to win any sympathy by branding Pakistan an aggressor. So there is that. Suck it up and move on.

There is enough evidence of that recently. Remember that macho speeches by Modi? If a single terrorist attack in India and we will do this and that? Well, here we have it and Indian response is?? Don't get me started on that. It is easy to bash Pakistan in election rallies but once you are in office reality hits you, hits you hard. And then you are back to proxies and economic strangulation of your neighbour.

I hope one of these days, an Indian politician comes clean to their public, at the expense of next election, and tell No sir, we can't overwhelm Pakistan without destroying our own country so let's move towards resolving our issues. Nuclear armed close neighbours just can't afford war. Price is too horrific, too terrible to pay. And I hope Nasr will play it's part what it was designed to do; to stop an aggression through fear and not be actually used.

P.S. And thank you India for your role in 1971. While it hurts emotionally, in your short term plan lied our long term sovereignty and freedom.

 

[sumoto]

please Leave me alive when you ""ANNIHILATE"" pakistan. Please. i Request you...

And please I request you not to fire your super duper NASRRRRRR.

 

[MastanKhan]

If what you're saying is true then what is the need for a conventional army anymore other than for glorified police operations inside the country? Why are we constantly upgrading our conventional forces to match India? Why are we going for new versions of AlKhalid's and 155 mm artillery among other things?

In my opinion the reason is clear; we intend to fight a conventional battle as long as we can and in case that doesn't work out too well for us then Nasr will come into play. A tactical nuke like Nasr, which is most probably a neutron bomb design, will leave most of the infrastructure intact and would obliterate enemy forces without leaving lethal amounts of radiation behind. I can well imagine a scenario where Indians make a beeline for Lahore and despite our best conventional efforts they reach inside 10-15 km of Pakistani territory, then all hell would break loose on the Indians columns in the form of Nasr. In this scenario even after using tactical nukes the world would not be able to condemn us because we would have used tactical nukes on the attacking army inside our own borders for defensive purposes. The entire blame of this catastrophe would fall on India.

Now seeing as Nasr is a tactical nuke, throwing Nasr on the enemy won't mean that the battle is over. I mean Indians are not that stupid that they would barge into Pakistan in huge numbers in closely packed formations to become target practice for Nasr. They would at most have 10-20 tanks in a 1 mile radius to avoid the lethal effects of Nasr on their entire attacking force. The same tactic was adopted by the Warsaw Pact after the development of tactical nuke by the US. See here:

"Indeed, a large-scale Warsaw Pact invasion would have involved something like 20,000 tanks. And those tanks would not be conveniently deployed in closely-packed formations. Surveillance of Warsaw Pact field exercises suggested that no more than 10 to 20 tanks would likely be within the effective area of a single weapon. Western forces, therefore, would have to detonate hundreds of neutron bombs."

I cant post the link because I need 29 posts for that but the above has been taken from a US report on tactical nukes.

Would we have 100s of Nasr to be fired upon the attacking force? Can you imagine us dropping a cumulative of 100kt of nuclear weapons on the advancing Indian forces in the form of tactical nukes? I don't think so. I think at the end there would have to be a conventional fight to keep the enemy at bay even after tactical nukes have been used. So in essence I think even the tactical nukes would be more of a scare tactic and a warning shot for the entire world to jump in and end the Indian madness before it finds itself in a nuclear winter.

I guess I've answered my own question in this reply.

Hi,

The word 'conventional' explains it all---. It is war---. You are going to try the weapons as seen fit in that theatre of war where you might think you have critical issues.

And yes you have answered your own question.

 

[SecularNationalist]

and we indians wont do anything and will wait to see the effect for your thermonuclear wepons

good if all pakistanies beleave like that

That will be too late for you .Keep that little one in your pants that,s what our threats are all about.
And how many times i have to tell you take some English classes ,that won,t make you any less of a troll.

 

[Gauss]

Hi,

Is that a mental masturbation or a genuine understanding based around facts and figures ?

you failed to take the hint. you need to work on your mental sharpness.
Pakistan doesnt have the stature in international community to carry nuclear weapons.

 

[salarsikander]

you failed to take the hint. you need to work on your mental sharpness.
Pakistan doesnt have the stature in international community to carry nuclear weapons.

Hi,

So does Invaders of Palestine and every other country that has not signed NPT.

In case you didnt know, Pakistan is RECOGNIZED as Nuclear armed state !

 

[airmarshal]

'If India loses patience.....' OMG I m so scared!

This coming from educated Indians depicts their bias, frustration and most of all not accepting Pakistan even after 70 years!

 

[Viper0011.]

Wow What a dangerous missile of 60 KM range. It is really a game changer since no such missile exist in Asia. LOL.

Do you usually try to think before you post crap? I've had this issue with you before. None of your comments make sense or are related to the issue. Are you more knowledgeable and smarter than your scientists and sr. leadership from the original post? Do you have a clue about the purpose of this "60" KM missile?

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Nasr will most probably be used for dropping dirty bombs. Tiny miniaturize nuclear bomb enough to destroy a militarily/air force base if you raise its range. Also other possible target includes fast moving brigade and tanks will be sitting ducks for it. Nasr is not a missile to destroy entire city. Its doesn't have that capability nor it has been designed to do so.

 

[paki_prince]

indians shitting it now

 

[FunkyGen]

barri achhi baat hai to kya apke tank aur fighter jets time pe bana lene se apke mulk me ho rahi dehshatgardi aur bijli ka bohran khatam ho gaya

waise sacch sachhi batana appne apne mulk me ek 100cc motorcycle engine bhi banaya hai kabhi

Janab batein karna asaan hai kaam nai aur humare haan masail hain magar ab ja ke hal ho rhe hain...

Tank aur missile tab ke liye jab hum pe hamla ho ga ya uska jawaz paida kiye jaye ga tab dekhein ge... aur btw tejas kaisa he apka?

 

[HariPrasad]

Do you usually try to think before you post crap? I've had this issue with you before. None of your comments make sense or are related to the issue. Are you more knowledgeable and smarter than your scientists and sr. leadership from the original post? Do you have a clue about the purpose of this "60" KM missile?

What is there in your post except absuing me. You are a third rate idiot who think that he is very wise. Counter my argument logic and stay away from personal attack.