Pakistan's Nuclear Submarine Development | News and Discussions

[Arsalan]

Would you please explain what is minimum deterrence, what is medium deterrence and what is maximum deterrence? Deterrence as I understand means the ability to successfully repulse any attack or the ability to effectively face any threat. Either you have it or you don't, 'minimum deterrence' or 'maximum deterrence' has no real meaning. Musharraf came up with this hogwash to appease his masters in Washington.

The MINIMUM force/requirement to achieve deterrence,
was this so difficult?

 

[killerx]

let them make one first and not of a suprise to many drums would be beaten if we make one

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

PN should add more muscle to its fleet... It should add more subs both nuclear n conventional ... it would be much more lethal.... hope they name the new N.sub "HANGOR".

 

[ARCHON]

next week they say "Surpriseeee".......

 

[S.Y.A]

wish we could bring more rich people under the tax net, then maybe we would have had money for the weapons...

 

[T-Rex]

The MINIMUM force/requirement to achieve deterrence,
was this so difficult?

A deterrence without mentioning the enemy is meaningless because what may be appropriate for an enemy like india is not even close to being enough for an enemy like israel.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

The MINIMUM force/requirement to achieve deterrence,
was this so difficult?

sorry but i completely disagree with your logic of being contended with this minimum deterrence policy, why go for a minimum deterrence policy when its capability is only a defensive one ? when PN have faced a navel blockade in the past confrontations & the threat of that still looms large in case of a confrontational situation arises in the future. Then my question is will it be wise to go on with a this weak method of deterrence known as the "minimum deterrence policy" ? wont it be vulnerable naval blockade ? in fact it will & it is. Why are we forgetting that the very logic of just being able to defend Pakistan's coastlines is in it self a flawed one? (not to forget that it is also a weak one) now what about supply lines ? did some one ever thought about that ? which is of paramount importance in todays Geo-strategic politic especially with regards to maritime security & its serious implications,what if in a future confrontations Pakistan's supply lines are cut of through a navel blockade ? with this present "status quo" will PN be able to break the blockade successfully ? i am afraid the answer is "NO". Because to have a Navy that can effectively break a navel blocked you need a Green what capability & not a minimum deterrence policy, so point being with the present capability & the fascination of being happy with just a brown water capability PN can either defend its coastlines or secure its supply lines, you can not get both with this minimum deterrence policy because for that you will need a truly "defensive & offensive" capability & power projection in other words
a full fledged "Green water Navy" on the lines of South Korean Navy which has a similar coastline of that of Pakistan

 

[punjabimunda]

sorry but i completely disagree with your being contended with this minimum deterrence policy, why go for a minimum deterrence policy when its capability is only defensive one ? when PN faced a naval blocked & the threat of that still looms in a confrontation then my question is will it be wise to go on with a this weak method of deterrence known as the "minimum deterrence policy" ? wont it be vulnerable, in fact it will & it is. why are we forgetting that the very logic of just being able to defending Pakistan's shores is in it self a flawed one? (not to forget that it is also a weak one) now what about supply lines which is of paramount importance ? with the present capability & fascination of being happy with just a brown water capability PN can either defend its coastlines or its secure supply lines, you can not get both with this minimum deterrence because for that you will need a "defensive & offensive" capability in other words
a full fledged "Green water Navy" on the lines of South Korean Navy which has a similar coastline of that of Pakistan

if ur pakistani then y u have bd flad..lol

 

[Desert Fox]

sorry but i completely disagree with your being contended with this minimum deterrence policy, why go for a minimum deterrence policy when its capability is only defensive one ? when PN faced a naval blocked & the threat of that still looms in a confrontation then my question is will it be wise to go on with a this weak method of deterrence known as the "minimum deterrence policy" ? wont it be vulnerable, in fact it will & it is. why are we forgetting that the very logic of just being able to defending Pakistan's shores is in it self a flawed one? (not to forget that it is also a weak one) now what about supply lines which is of paramount importance ? with the present capability & fascination of being happy with just a brown water capability PN can either defend its coastlines or its secure supply lines, you can not get both with this minimum deterrence because for that you will need a "defensive & offensive" capability in other words
a full fledged "Green water Navy" on the lines of South Korean Navy which has a similar coastline of that of Pakistan

I agree, we need to strengthen our navy to an extent that we can not only defend our coastline but also vital supply lines from the Arabian countries, this should also include going on the offensive.

During Kargil the IN blockaded Pakistani ports and Pakistan was short on oil supply, defending coastline is not enough when your supply lines are cut off by the enemy which hampers your war production/war effort.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

I agree, we need to strengthen our navy to an extent that we can not only defend our coastline but also vital supply lines from the Arabian countries, this should also include going on the offensive.

During Kargil the IN blockaded Pakistani ports and Pakistan was short on oil supply, defending coastline is not enough when your supply lines are cut off by the enemy which hampers your war production/war effort.

exactly bro i totally agree with you

 

[pk_baloch]

nice reply ....

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Navies are expensive affairs.

 

[ice_man]

Navies are expensive affairs.

even the germans in WORLD WAR 1 kept its navy in its harbors because the British navy was too mighty for it to challenge. Pakistan navy should ensure that its supply routes & harbors are safe & not blocked! the "offensive" is not an option in an india vs pakistan naval battle.

 

[Penguin]

even the germans in WORLD WAR 1 kept its navy in its harbors because the British navy was too mighty for it to challenge. Pakistan navy should ensure that its supply routes & harbors are safe & not blocked! the "offensive" is not an option in an india vs pakistan naval battle.

Kept in port? 1914&1916 Bombardments of British coast e.g. Yarmouth, 1915 Dogger bank, 1916 Jutland, 1917 unrestricted submarine warfare?
World War 1 at Sea

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

even the germans in WORLD WAR 1 kept its navy in its harbors because the British navy was too mighty for it to challenge. Pakistan navy should ensure that its supply routes & harbors are safe & not blocked! the "offensive" is not an option in an india vs pakistan naval battle.

To protect ur supply routes u would need a navy of large surface ships.Submarines,missile boats are sea denial weapons good for coastal defense but certainly not open water protection of supply vessels.Surface ships are expensive.Hence my comment.Right now PN is resigned to the fact that unless funding is drastically increased it may be able to defend its harbours but blockade and supply interdiction is inevitable more or less.