What's new

Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons Should Terrify You

Americans made and deployed as many as 3000 TNWs. Soviets also deployed an arsenal of thousands of BFNWs. And all these weapons were deployed actively in Europe.

And even today, there is sizeable arsenal of TNWs and BFNWs operational on European lands.


It's a myth, or better to say an over generalization. The control mechanism varies from state to state. In case of US, the TNWs control was still within Central Command and after the PALs are delivered, only then the battlefield Commander could arm and use the weapons in their possession as per the official recommendations. These weapons are not artillery.


By similar logic, we can also tag Indian policy as a 'saying' instead of a well crafted state policy.

It is waste of money by making tactical nuclear bombs.

I m completely agree with the our policy (Indian) if anyone drop a single tactical nuclear bomb on even a single Indian army than drop all available nuclear bombs as a response.. Don't need to make tactical nuclear bombs and waste money.

But it will be very foolish and childish to think a nuclear bomb on enemy if she also has nuclear bombs.

Do any Pakistani or Indian members of the PDF believe that India and Pakistan will be at peace with each other (say in the fashion of Britain, France and Germany, today) in their lifetimes?

No, the problem starts with Kashmir. If both countries can flush their claims on other part of j&k, then only possible.

But, I don't think that is possible....
 
.
Who will source nukes to India?
Here's how Pakistani nuclear test looked like, where is evidence or data of your tests?
290px-Pakistan_Nuclear_Test.jpg

That is the case. Many are not fully satisfied with Indians "Nuclear Capabilities". Some of the Indians have cast doubts about the reality of their nuclear tests.

Indians have never fully explained that to date.

It is waste of money by making tactical nuclear bombs.

I m completely agree with the our policy (Indian) if anyone drop a single tactical nuclear bomb on even a single Indian army than drop all available nuclear bombs as a response.. Don't need to make tactical nuclear bombs and waste money.

But it will be very foolish and childish to think a nuclear bomb on enemy if she also has nuclear bombs.



No, the problem starts with Kashmir. If both countries can flush their claims on other part of j&k, then only possible.

But, I don't think that is possible....

I tell you what is wrong with your reply. One side you say that "But it will be very foolish and childish to think a nuclear bomb on enemy if she also has nuclear bombs."

And on the other hand you say, "drop all available bombs as a response."

Did you see the stupidity of your post!!!
 
.
No one gives a crap about Indian policy.


Indian policy is clear, you use Nukes of any kind, it's Nuclear war the response may be disproportional. The reason why Americans and Russians didn't make more TNW and armed their respective armies with it is that it gives low ranking military men operating batteries too much power, rather the fate of the nation hangs in the hands of these men, unlike a central nuclear command involving different checks and balances.
 
.
I tell you what is wrong with your reply. One side you say that "But it will be very foolish and childish to think a nuclear bomb on enemy if she also has nuclear bombs."

And on the other hand you say, "drop all available bombs as a response."

Did you see the stupidity of your post!!!

The simple meaning is that since we already have nuclear bombs then we should not need to develop or worry about tactical nuclear bombs because if anyone drop a single tactical nuclear bomb on a single Indian army than it will be very a very foolish and childish act..

The same reason we have no first use policy even now..
 
.
If Pakistan loses territory due to quantitative advantage of Indian Army, there'll be nothing more to lose. For an Army, losing significant territory is unacceptable. Pakistan Army is determined (and Indian spy networks know this well) to use tactical weapons on Indian Army inside Pakistan's territorial boundaries. The weapons are so sophisticated that there's no counter on field and India might lose tens of thousands of soldiers in just less than 10 blows.

If Indian policy says that in that case, it will do a counter attack with full force.. that's fine.. But does India have the guts to do that fully knowing the second strike capability of Pakistan and an unknown reach of Pakistani ballistic missiles? Will it risk lives of 100s of millions and going back to the year 1900 to start over just because it has lost some thousands of soldiers and lost the land that didn't belong to them in the first place?

This is the question that confuses Indian strategists.. Pakistan is ready.. and that shows in the response given at LoC from time to time. India is not ready and doesn't want to risk a little progress it has made in the past couple of decades.

Pakistan might lose its 90% population.. but India will also lose the same percent.. if not quickly, over the years when they will have to deal with post nuclear diseases, waste lands, destroyed industry etc.. It will be all over for the sub continent and the neighboring countries.

In my honest opinion, west will keep a balance on the conventional theater and keep on providing gadgets that give enough strength to a highly trained Pakistani force. They know that the training and some advanced gadgets will effectively challenge an Indian advance that relies on quantity more than quality.
Yes, Pakistan checked India's advance on the nuclear front for nearly two decades now. However, things are becoming more fluid, slowly though. The rising economic disparity between India and Pakistan will further fuel the fluidity of the situation. If the economic gap between India and Pakistan continues to grow, the economic differential will start turning into military differential and investment into newer technologies that bring more ambiguity into play. It's hard to quantify that now but a hypothetical example could be potential breakthroughs in BMD and India acquiring enough to give them the confidence of neutralizing most Pakistani BM's fired. That could give them the confidence to respond to a tactical nuke with a small strategic one. The 'strategic strike' from India could be a small or remote town/village.

Economics differences have very long lead times. Some Pakistani intellectuals have actually started commenting on this - that the economic disparities now will translate into military and technological differentials decades down the line. Bullwhip effect of a different kind. Makes for interesting reading what the intellectual commentators of India and Pakistan say.
 
.
I m completely agree with the our policy (Indian) if anyone drop a single tactical nuclear bomb on even a single Indian army than drop all available nuclear bombs as a response.. Don't need to make tactical nuclear bombs and waste money.

But it will be very foolish and childish to think a nuclear bomb on enemy if she also has nuclear bombs.
Your opinion carries no worth, neither for Indian nuclear policy makers nor for Pakistan Nuclear policy makers.
 
.
Well it is suppose to terrify you and please make sure that you stay home.
 
. .
i think china will secretly provide its hydrogen bomb in the event of any such nuclear war as it i in interest of china that india is eliminated from earth as there will be no more threat to them in region after this
Pakistan has just 10 or so more nuclear weapons, with one third of them being tactical. Where as total yield of Indian nuclear weapons is believed to far larger than Pakistan's arsenal.

Considering India has 4.5 times more land area than Pakistan, 6 times more population, a missile defence system in the process of deployment and a true nuclear triad. Indian nuclear response would be far more devastating for Pakistan, than Pakistan's for India.
 
.
In my honest opinion, west will keep a balance on the conventional theater and keep on providing gadgets that give enough strength to a highly trained Pakistani force. They know that the training and some advanced gadgets will effectively challenge an Indian advance that relies on quantity more than quality.
Then why US is stopping F16s, AIM120Ds, AH1Zs, T129s when India has AH64Es, rafale with Meteors. US only gave one Oliver Hazard Perry Class even why PN was very small as compared to IN
 
.
If Pakistan loses territory due to quantitative advantage of Indian Army, there'll be nothing more to lose. For an Army, losing significant territory is unacceptable. Pakistan Army is determined (and Indian spy networks know this well) to use tactical weapons on Indian Army inside Pakistan's territorial boundaries. The weapons are so sophisticated that there's no counter on field and India might lose tens of thousands of soldiers in
Tactical nukes use small missile with low range and hence difficult to intercept. But that doesn't mean tens of thousands of Indian soldiers will be killed. TNW is not strong enough to kill soldiers in that quantity unless Indian soldiers are stupid and stand in a single location. Generally, soldiers spread out to have higher land control. So, you can't kill tens of thousands of soldiers unless you use dozens of nukes. But if you use 10 nukes for 10000 soldiers, then you are only killing 1000 per nuke which is quite small.

If Indian policy says that in that case, it will do a counter attack with full force.. that's fine.. But does India have the guts to do that fully knowing the second strike capability of Pakistan and an unknown reach of Pakistani ballistic missiles? Will it risk lives of 100s of millions and going back to the year 1900 to start over just because it has lost some thousands of soldiers and lost the land that didn't belong to them in the first place?
Nukes are.not magic weapons that war can be won by nukes. If nukes were enough to win war, why develop 5th generation planes, radars, navy etc? Think logically instead of saying that merely nuke strike will kill everyone from other side. No, India will not go back to 1900 o even 1950s due to nuke strike. India has enough industrial capability and infrastructure to withstand attacks amd still maintain production. In war, every country will be willing to lose people. India too will be willing to lose 3-4 crore people to gain permanent solution.

This is the question that confuses Indian strategists.. Pakistan is ready.. and that shows in the response given at LoC from time to time. India is not ready and doesn't want to risk a little progress it has made in the past couple of decades.
India is not ready as it knows it can get stronger. India van develop more technology like BMD and defend against most Pakistani missiles, thus minimising losses. Pakistan knows that it can never develop advanced technology fast enough to counter India. So, the more delay happens, Pakistan will face even greater technology odds. So, Pakistan is just desperate while India is buying time. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean India can't defeat Pakistan now. It is just that India can defeat Pakistan tomorrow with much less losses.

Pakistan might lose its 90% population.. but India will also lose the same percent.. if not quickly, over the years when they will have to deal with post nuclear diseases, waste lands, destroyed industry etc.. It will be all over for the sub continent and the neighboring countries.
India will not lose 90% population. Japan didn't lose half its people because of nuclear diseases or wasteland. In fact, there is no evidence to say that Japanese suffered from nuclear diseases over time. Only those who were hit on the day of explosion were the ones who suffered.
In my honest opinion, west will keep a balance on the conventional theater and keep on providing gadgets that give enough strength to a highly trained Pakistani force. They know that the training and some advanced gadgets will effectively challenge an Indian advance that relies on quantity more than quality.
West is irrelevant. They won't involve themselves beyond a point. So, it will come down to the strength of India and Pakistan and allies. No big country like China, Russia or USA would like to get its people killed in someone else's war.
But we need to look at the positive side of the policies. With Pakistan's resolve of using tactical nukes and India's efforts to build a robust second strike capability balance each other out. (However Pakistan's deployment of long range nuclear cruise missiles on submarines will complicate situation)
Second strike is absurd theory. Nukes are mated on missiles and stored underground or beneath mountains which van be killed by first strike. Nucleae submarine ia mainly for striking long range Targets as im case of USSR - USA which lie half the world away and hence the conventional ballistic missiles can't be accurate while navigating earth's curvature. Hence submarines were brought in to launch the missiles from closer to enemy shores. Nuke missile is nit stored in open ground for someone to strike at it.

You see, the Indian mentality is based around the perceived fantasy that India has a lot less to lose in a nuclear war and Pakistan has a lot to lose, that India will come out as the "winning side" in a nuclear war. Pakistan on the other hand feels that its survival is at stake and if India launches a pre-emptive strike, it might be annihilated, hence Pakistan must make sure secondary strike capability is guaranteed to work in order to decapitate the enemy as a last measure.
Nuclear strike, whether first or second, can only cause so much damage. War can be won only by long term sustained campaign. One shot kills are only fantasy. No, India doesn't think that it can kill Pakistan with some nuclear strikes but that India will destroy Pakistan and wipe out its people through sustained campaign due to superior technology and industrial capabilities.

We have su-30 .....Pakis are no match = Abhinandan happened
We have better nukes , bigger in size .... Pakis are no match = Still don't have the guts to attack and occupy.
Skirmishes doesn't mean anything. Moreover, Abhinandan was using Mig21 which is very old.

Pakistan will wait for you to attack but once you do, Pakistan WILL launch TNW, Pakistan WILL decimate all of your forces in a matter of seconds and once india is out of a military, Pakistan WILL march in and take swaths upon swaths all kinds of indian land AT WILL and if anyone in delhi so much as dares to even think about going nuclear, our strategic thermonuclear warheads will be raining across india even before india gets a chance to launch a single missile.
India has 30 lakh square kilometres of land, can you give me calculations as to how you can destroy so much land by nuclear strikes? How many nuclear strikes will you do?
Its a stupid policy. It should be a proportional response. Lets face it. If a NASR missile roasts 800 indian soldiers indian high command wont have the guts to launch the big guys because it means the end to Indian life as you know it. Pakistan will equal the damage.
India is waiting to destroy Pakistan. But middle east oil powers are stopping it. If India gets an excuse to attack, why would it let go?
Countries build massive nuclear arsenals because they know, most of their weapons would be wiped out , by enemies nuclear decapitation strikes.
No, it is because the land mass ia very large and hence if we calculate the destructive power of nukes, we will need a lot of them to take out all enemy bases.
exercise? :lol:

son, this was the real deal...when the Feb 27 attack happened, the missiles were already prepped up & ready to launch a day before the PAF strikes...why do you think the indian army refused to cross the boundry in spite of having moved forces to the front?
Lol! India crossed into Pakistan and bombed Balakot. India didn't hesitate when it had an objective. It doesn't mean India will invade Pakistan arbitrarily
Pakistan having/not having thermonuclear weapons is debatable as Pakistan's security establishment is keeping that capability ambiguous on purpose as some retired generals hints on having that capability and some deny it in interviews.
Show me where anyone has said that Pakistan has thermonuclear weapons? Many have said that Pakistan plans to develop it but never that Pakistan has already developed them.

Why do you think the US Deep State has made peace with the Taliban? And, Pompeo is running Kissinger-style diplomacy with China using Bagram Air Base...
USA does not have land bases to maintain Afghanistan. So, it was compelled to make peace as it started losing support from middle east and Pakistan. Middle East and Pakistan have shifted their support to China instead of USA and hence USA withdrew.
u friggin cowards will be the first one to use.. after just one bashing session you lunghis got wet and you were coming out of statement thst india will reconsider first use policy.. just imagine if war happened, u will be shooting nukes withkut a reason.. u r a highly irresponsible state..
Manohar Parrikar had already said this in 2015-16. You are simply joining unconnected dots
 
.
India has 30 lakh square kilometres of land, can you give me calculations as to how you can destroy so much land by nuclear strikes? How many nuclear strikes will you do?
you...don't realize how nukes work...do you? Got any idea how much destruction 100 mirv armed missiles will reign on india? I sincerely hope that monkey in your avatar fires ajit doval & hires you...such suicidal overconfidence is just what we want controlling india. ;)
Lol! India crossed into Pakistan and bombed Balakot. India didn't hesitate when it had an objective. It doesn't mean India will invade Pakistan arbitrarily
:omghaha: imdia panicked, bombed 3 trees & a crow followed by running with its tail between its legs only to bombed in 6 different locations, loosing 2 jets & shooting down its own helicopters the very next day. please feel free to keep on not hesitating like this in the future...no promise of fantashtik tea though so don't hold your breath. 8-)
 
.

What none sense have are you spewing ? Let me spell it out for you in plain simple English.

You farted in your post that "Last year, Pakistan's 100 strategic nuclear missiles took less than 10 minutes to be ready launch ".

Provide proof of this.

Pakistan's tactical nuke doctrine is to use them if India's invasion cannot be halted via conventional means. India wouldn't respond by initiating MAD, that's ridiculous.

And Indian nuclear doctrine is that we will not use nuclear weapons first, but if any nation uses any kind nuclear weapons on Indian soil or Indian forces anywhere, India will give massive, unacceptable nuclear retaliation.
 
.
What none sense have are you spewing ? Let me spell it out for you in plain simple English.

You farted in your post that "Last year, Pakistan's 100 strategic nuclear missiles took less than 10 minutes to be ready launch ".
Read three link again before farting your mouth off, DGISPR alluded to the nukes already being ready you bhaktard!:lol:
 
.
i think china will secretly provide its hydrogen bomb in the event of any such nuclear war as it i in interest of china that india is eliminated from earth as there will be no more threat to them in region after this

Why will China encourage, a large nuclear confrontation or weapons with large nuclear yields. For larger the yield, more damage China will suffer due to nuclear winter, for China being an immediate neighbor, especially to India.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom