Pakistan's Tactical Nukes: The Bottom Line

[zebra7]

Only some photos and videos of Hatf-IX Nasr made Indians weep badly. Just imagine their response when we will deploy these missiles in active battlefield. Every Indian armor unit will hesitate to make any advance because Nasr is there to welcome them.

Yes the video showing nasr as the response to Mangalyaan did that and my stomach cramped from the laughter.

The Pak establishment of late have been flaunting their battlefield nukes with gay abandon as though these would be a winner in a future war with India. Ok, let's check it out.

Question: How many Nasrs would be required to stop an Indian thrust? Here's the maths...

For a max 5KT warhead (max 5KT warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 KT)

– Blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km

Integrated Combat Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.

How many tactical nukes would be required to destroy one CG? - 25 Nasrs (with 5KT warhead. 125 nukes with 1KT warhead).

Initial strike with 10 -15 combat groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.

Minimum battlefield nukes needed to destroy the CGs = > 250 Nasrs with 5KT warhead or 1250 Nasrs with 1KT warhead!

That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! Remember, all tanks and personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.

So, going a step further, 250x5 KT = 1250 KT ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort). And I haven't even got started on an Indian nuclear riposte! Add that to the mix and....Curtains!

What would be left of Eastern Pakistan?

It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face! And then there's the question of validation of Pakistan's tactical nukes which have never been tested. The US deemed their tactical nukes operational only after several tests. They have long discarded the use of tactical nukes as an unwise and dangerous doctrine.

Bottom line: Use of tactical nukes? Bad idea!

This thread is not open for trolling. I request some serious discussion. Thanks.

Nasr with 60 km of range, whats the advantage when the same thing could be achieved with remote triggered suitcase bomb.

 

[sparten]

You don't use Tactical nukes to attack armoured formations. You employ them to eliminate logistics dumps, communication nodes, bridgeheads, troop concentrations. In other words, the things that Indian armoured formations rely on to work, whicb are large, immobile and vulnerable

An armoured division whose logistic support has been destroyed, bridgehead is eliminated and which is dispersed for fear of being turned in pollution if it concentrate is no threat to anyone.

Its not much different from Lahore and Chawinda in 1965 and Shakargarh in 1971, when PAF attacks on these targets saved Lahore and Sialkot.

 

[The Deterrent]

You don't use Tactical nukes to attack armoured formations. You employ them to eliminate logistics dumps, communication nodes, bridgeheads, troop concentrations. In other words, the things that Indian armoured formations rely on to work, whicb are large, immobile and vulnerable

An armoured division whose logistic support has been destroyed, bridgehead is eliminated and which is dispersed for fear of being turned in pollution if it concentrate is no threat to anyone.

Its not much different from Lahore and Chawinda in 1965 and Shakargarh in 1971, when PAF attacks on these targets saved Lahore and Sialkot.

Hear hear.
Adding to this, consider smoking IA occupying slices of Pakistani territory close to the international border as another possible use of Nasr.

 

[Donald Trump]

You don't use Tactical nukes to attack armoured formations. You employ them to eliminate logistics dumps, communication nodes, bridgeheads, troop concentrations. In other words, the things that Indian armoured formations rely on to work, whicb are large, immobile and vulnerable

An armoured division whose logistic support has been destroyed, bridgehead is eliminated and which is dispersed for fear of being turned in pollution if it concentrate is no threat to anyone.

Its not much different from Lahore and Chawinda in 1965 and Shakargarh in 1971, when PAF attacks on these targets saved Lahore and Sialkot.

You're talking about a conventional attack into enemy territory where one establishes concentration areas from where formations concentrate before launching an offensive. Cold Start - or whatever you like to call it - isn't going to be one.

Firstly, Integrated Combat Teams attacking on multiple thrust lines simultaneously are self contained for a week of combat and not dependent on logistics back-up ab initio.

Secondly, logistics nodes etc are well within own territory and out of range of your Nasr missiles.

Thirdly, to reiterate, there's no such thing as 'concentration areas' for the 'Cold Start' doctrine of multiple thrusts by self contained ICGs over a wide frontage of 400km to 500km.

Fourthly, bridgeheads are established only during obstacle crossing like rivers and canals. Not in deserts where there are no obstacles.

 

[sparten]

A single NASR launcher can threaten about 8-12000 sq km, or in other words, an area about the size of N Ireland. Greatly complicates Indian offensive operations even sans the use of nuclear warheads.

You're talking about a conventional attack into enemy territory where one establishes concentration areas from where formations concentrate before launching an offensive. Cold Start - or whatever you like to call it - isn't going to be one.

Firstly, Integrated Combat Teams attacking on multiple thrust lines simultaneously are self contained for a week of combat and not dependent on logistics back-up ab initio.

Secondly, logistics nodes etc are well within own territory and out of range of your Nasr missiles.

Thirdly, to reiterate, there's no such thing as 'concentration areas' for the 'Cold Start' doctrine of multiple thrusts by self contained ICGs over a wide frontage of 400km to 500km.

Fourthly, bridgeheads are established only during obstacle crossing like rivers and canals. Not in deserts where there are no obstacles.

Saw this post later.

An armoured division employs about 60 tonnes of supplies, a day. Even reducing that, means the Integrated Combat Groups are going to be hungry for ammo and thirsty for fuel.

You cannot just hand wave logistics away, it is literally the most important thing there is in the war, those shiny T90's are worth crap if they lack fuel, ammo and food for the crew.

Firstly, you cannot just wave away logistics by saying "self contained for a week". There are two possible scenarios that can occur. If logistics are self contained, it means that support groups are either organic to the formations or closely attached, in either case, they are closeby the start line and vulnerable to counterfire If you wish to protect them by putting them in the rear, that greatly increases the time from when your average Rajiv in the field asks for resupply to when he actually gets it. Which on a group level means that the combat effectiveness of the group is compromised. So an armoured task force which attacks say in the Sutluj-Cholistan area, will find that it has quickly used up its supplies and needs more, while it is being hit by Pakistani counterattacks, or it will have to reduce the penetration level.

Secondly, simply saying "desert, no obstacle" is inaccurate. A desert war eats up even more material than one in the plains and unlike the plains deserts are quite poor in roads, your tanks and IFV might be able to move cross country, but the trucks which carry their fuel and ammo need to stick to roads, which are ,limited in the desert. So now you are facing reliance on one or two roads, often with the most awful traffic jams in places like defiles or ridges, leaving yourself open to counter attacks.

There is no "right answer" every solution has its advantages, and Cold Start is a sound strategy, its implementatiob is not a certainty of success like Indians wish to think.

(and its not like that NASR is the only platform that Pakistan can employ).