Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

[Contrarian]

Ticker, do post a link.

Secondly, regardless of whether Pakistan decides its a limit or not. IN will blockade Pakistan.

For those who question the technological ability of IN to carry it out. Take a flying f*king minute out of your lives to see what IN has and is planning to field against you in case of a war.
We have AShM's that out range and outnumber those you have. IN is also putting a damned Barak 1, Barak II SAM with 70kms range on every capital ship it has. Barak II is supposed to be a MRSAM AEGIS like system for fleet AShM defence. Beyond that there are fighters operated by IN exclusively, not the least of which are operated off a CBG that provide fleet air defence.

No, you will hardly be able to make a dent on IN with the coastal SAM's and warship operated SAM's. The only defence that Pakistan can have is via submarines.

But intelligent Pakistani posters here didnt even mention that once, instead started off counting their AShM's which arent likely to be 10% as effective against an AAW prepared IN.

Lastly, for the uninitiated, IN doesnt need to send ships to even 300kms of your coast to bomb every port that can handle traffic. That initself will mean a blockade of your country. When no country can land their heavy supplies like Oil, Gas, Ammo, Spares, Military equipment at your ports..it means you have been blockaded. Its not like the old days when a ship needs to be parked off your coast to do it.

Infact, blockading Pakistan will be the number 1 act of IN at the declaration of war.

Ticker yaaar waisee eik cheez tou bataaa - Why is that we're the ones who're always portrayed as having a conundrum ? If you (Pakistan) use the nukes, albeit battlefield nukes, that means the 'no-nuclear' thing is violated and we're under no compulsion to fOok you over even if it means using nukes. Why doesn't it ever go to the tune of - We've just parked our air-craft carrier a hundred Kms from Karachi....what if the Pakistanis target the flotilla with a couple of battlefield nukes ? What then ? Our men our dead, our boats are sitting at the bottom of the ocean...do we reply back by using battlefield nukes in turn on their FOBs, their formations etc or is that going to escalate things so much that they'd be willing to do everything nuclear just short of bombing our cities ? What then..? Should we proceed...shouldn't we proceed ? Perhaps we shouldn't have parked the carrier there or perhaps we shouldn't have crossed the LOC over or perhaps a limited conflict is the only possible thing on the card or do we call their bluff, if it is a bluff, and carry through with an all-out war ? What if we're wrong...? What happens then ?

If i may add here, the assumption is as always that Pakistan will try and make up for its lack of military might by sending in a few terrorists. That will be the cause of war.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Actually no , some here are assuming every single best case scenario for their country and worst for others , they are thinking about facing no resistance from the PA , crossing borders by surprise as we are sleeping at the borders , capturing our land , expecting Pakistanis to support them on this invasion and then thinking that they can win a nuclear war if Islamabad chooses to start one !

I urge you to go through the thread and see who they are and from which country do they belong

And some are assuming that they will nuke our battlefield formations without us reducing Islamabad and Lahore to rubble. Also they assume that they can launch an and our ships have nothing to fight back.

 

[Secur]

And some are assuming that they will nuke our battlefield formations without us reducing Islamabad and Lahore to rubble. Also they assume that they can launch an and our ships have nothing to fight back.

No , I am not ... I am just pondering if Indian strategists are stupid enough to risk the lives of billions just because Pakistan has used tactical nukes on an invading army ... Pakistan will not launch nukes on Indian cities at first ... Nah , we always said , there are no victors in a nuclear war yet your countrymen are so desperate to prove otherwise ... I suggest they read " Mutually Assured Destruction " ...

Tell you what , even though we dont assume that there will be no retaliation unlike you , I must remind you of the fact Sea Denial is much easier than Superiority , the task is to defend the coastline , much easier on Pakistani side ...

 

[EzioAltaïr]

No , I am not ... I am just pondering over the fact if Indians are stupid enough to risk the lives of billions just because Pakistan has used tactical nukes on an invading army ... Nah , we always said , there are no victors in a nuclear war yet your countrymen are so desperate to prove otherwise ... I suggest they read " Mutually Assured Destruction " ...

Tell you what , even though we dont assume that there will be no retaliation unlike you , I must remind you of the fact Sea Denial is much easier than Superiority , the task is to defend the coastline , much easier on Pakistani side ...



I just clicked the report link , was that correct ?

Indians don't go around saying we don't care about conventional superiority because of nukes. Pakistanis on here think that nukes are the be all and end all, and assume that they can nuke us, without us retaliating. All we do, is put things back into perspective. If anyone needs to read up on MAD, it's you guys, who always talk about superior nukes and whatnot.

It may be easier to defend, but then there's also the fact that India just needs to send missile boats to patrol the Arabian Sea, and all trade to Pakistan can be stopped. This will ultimately force Pakistan to try and retaliate and draw them out of the safety of Karachi, into the open Ocean, where India has clear superiority. Indian coastline on the other hand is simply too vast and open to be blockaded, unlike the Pakistani coastline.

 

[Desert Fox]

You speak like only Pakistan has ASMs, no one else does.

But Pakistan's isn't the one threatening imaginary blockades on indian ports.

And some are assuming that they will nuke our battlefield formations without us reducing Islamabad and Lahore to rubble. Also they assume that they can launch an and our ships have nothing to fight back.

And some are assuming that they will invade Pakistan without us reducing fighting back. Also they assume that they can blockade our ports as if our navy will not fight back.

 

[Secur]

Indians don't go around saying we don't care about conventional superiority because of nukes. Pakistanis on here think that nukes are the be all and end all, and assume that they can nuke us, without us retaliating. All we do, is put things back into perspective. If anyone needs to read up on MAD, it's you guys, who always talk about superior nukes and whatnot.

It may be easier to defend, but then there's also the fact that India just needs to send missile boats to patrol the Arabian Sea, and all trade to Pakistan can be stopped. This will ultimately force Pakistan to try and retaliate and draw them out of the safety of Karachi, into the open Ocean, where India has clear superiority. Indian coastline on the other hand is simply too vast and open to be blockaded, unlike the Pakistani coastline.

Ok , but they assume this scenario when considering China aka an equal enemy ... Yes , Pakistanis rely on nukes to neutralize your conventional superiority because they are faced with 5x larger enemy ... Nah , not one Pakistani in this thread has said that India will not retaliate ... Just that if Cold Start is put into practice , every single IBG will be nuked , we will wait then for the Indians to retreat or escalate the war further by launching nukes on our cities and effectively starting a MAD chain ...

Yeah , missile boats ... Are you mistaking PN for some other navy ? Or do you think this time that there will be no retaliation ?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

But Pakistan's isn't the one threatening imaginary blockades on indian ports.



And some are assuming that they will invade Pakistan without us reducing fighting back. Also they assume that they can blockade our ports as if our navy will not fight back.

Imaginary blockades?

 

[cyphercide]

Tactical nukes on Pakistan's side are a leg up for India as they would simply fulfill the conditionality imposed by the No First Use doctrine. Nobody can argue against a massive retaliation or a disproportionate response from India's side in the case of a tactical nuke being deployed.

Again, what seems to be the beef ?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Tactical nukes on Pakistan's side are leg up for India as they would simply fulfill the conditionality imposed by the No First Use doctrine. Nobody can argue against a massive retaliation or a disproportionate response from India's side in the case a tactical nuke being deployed.

Again, what seems to be the beef ?

The only way Pakistan's battlefield nukes are of use, is if it can neutralise all our Agnis, Prahaars, K series SLBMs, Dhanushs, and Prithvis, with it's first strike of high payload nukes, then deploy BF nukes to prevent conventional attack.

Yeah, impossible.

 

[Secur]

The only way Pakistan's battlefield nukes are of use, is if it can neutralise all our Agnis, Prahaars, K series SLBMs, Dhanushs, and Prithvis, with it's first strike of high payload nukes, then deploy BF nukes to prevent conventional attack.

Yeah, impossible.

First go and learn the purpose of battlefield tactical nukes and research on what we are discussing all along ... The aim of nuking Indian IBG's is to make them retreat , not neutralize the whole Indian missile capability or nuke Indian cities ... Retreat , save a billion , continue , risk a billion , what would you choose ? ... And Cold Start is only good if it succeed in occupying a large part of Pakistan without facing any resistance / retaliation both conventional and nuclear which is impossible

 

[EzioAltaïr]

First go and learn the purpose of battlefield tactical nukes and research on what we are discussing all along ... The aim of nuking Indian IBG's is to make them retreat , not neutralize the whole Indian missile capability or nuke Indian cities ... Retreat , save a billion , continue , risk a billion , what would you choose ? ... And Cold Start is only good if it succeed in occupying a large part of Pakistan without facing any resistance / retaliation both conventional and nuclear which is impossible

Cold Start assures that within 48 hours India can have 100,000 troops deployed, with a running flow of troops and equipment continuing. So it can mobilise faster than Pakistan and push a few hundred kilometers in before Pakistan. By then the rest of our force can be mobilised, and make a massive push, leaving BF nukes as the only option.

Once Pakistan uses BF nukes, the NFU conditions are fulfilled, we can retaliate, launch our own nukes, burn down all Pakistani nuclear facilities and raze their cities to the ground. Since India has SLBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs, we can effectively destroy most of your nukes without the fear that we won't have enough left over for the cities. If Pakistan retaliates, it will surely hit Mumbai or Delhi, both of which have ABM systems, which will be even better by next year.

What would Pakistan choose? Retreat, save 180 million, or continue?

 

[cyphercide]

The only way Pakistan's battlefield nukes are of use, is if it can neutralise all our Agnis, Prahaars, K series SLBMs, Dhanushs, and Prithvis, with it's first strike of high payload nukes, then deploy BF nukes to prevent conventional attack.

Yeah, impossible.

Forget the missiles, how exactly is Pakistan going to maintain air superiority to even thwart gravity bombs?

First go and learn the purpose of battlefield tactical nukes and research on what we are discussing all along ... The aim of nuking Indian IBG's is to make them retreat , not neutralize the whole Indian missile capability or nuke Indian cities ... Retreat , save a billion , continue , risk a billion , what would you choose ? ... And Cold Start is only good if it succeed in occupying a large part of Pakistan without facing any resistance / retaliation both conventional and nuclear which is impossible

That works on the assumption that India would be gracious enough to not return the favor on Pakistani soil. And as the nuclear preparations during Kargil show, that's a pretty big assumption you're working with.

 

[Mav3rick]

And some are assuming that they will nuke our battlefield formations without us reducing Islamabad and Lahore to rubble. Also they assume that they can launch an and our ships have nothing to fight back.

Using tactical nukes on battle fields is one thing, using nukes that can wipe out an entire city on major cities is altogether another thing. In case of a scenario as per your deduction, India would be wiped out of this world.....every inch of her!

On the contrary, it is your assumption that IN has the capacity to blockade Pakistani ports effectively as if PN has nothing to hit back with or to defend her ports with!

 

[Mav3rick]

Cold Start assures that within 48 hours India can have 100,000 troops deployed, with a running flow of troops and equipment continuing. So it can mobilise faster than Pakistan and push a few hundred kilometers in before Pakistan. By then the rest of our force can be mobilised, and make a massive push, leaving BF nukes as the only option.

So according to Indian cold start doctrine, IM can mobilize 100k troops within 48 hours that can push a few hundred km's into Pakistan's territory? Son, what you could not dare think about in 1999 or in 2002, you think possible to actually do in the future???

Once Pakistan uses BF nukes, the NFU conditions are fulfilled, we can retaliate, launch our own nukes, burn down all Pakistani nuclear facilities and raze their cities to the ground. Since India has SLBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs, we can effectively destroy most of your nukes without the fear that we won't have enough left over for the cities. If Pakistan retaliates, it will surely hit Mumbai or Delhi, both of which have ABM systems, which will be even better by next year.

Pakistan will use BF nukes only in the severest of cases where PakMil is run over by IndMil. It is a contingency plan that comes into effect when everything else fails. Do you not think that Indian Military would resort to use of WMD's in case IndMil is run over by PakMil? Ofcourse they would rubbish their non first use policy and go Nuclear in that case.

Following on, by the time Pakistan is forced to use BF nukes, all other Nuclear Warheads would be deployed, ready for launch within minutes of order. In such a case, if BM launches are detected across the border at our cities.....the launch from this side, too, would be final, annihilating and decisive! By then, India would have made the decision for us by acting as a suicide bomber!

Finally.....those ABM systems are yet to be tested against some state of the art Missile systems that incorporate MIRV's with decoys and counter measures. Only children think such matters to be child's play.

What would Pakistan choose? Retreat, save 180 million, or continue?

Continue....death or life, but with dignity and honor!

Forget the missiles, how exactly is Pakistan going to maintain air superiority to even thwart gravity bombs?

PAF has enough deployed assets to protect Pakistan's air space. The onus will be on the aggressors to enter into a hot air space that not only has fighter jets protecting it but also state of the art SAM & EW systems.

That works on the assumption that India would be gracious enough to not return the favor on Pakistani soil. And as the nuclear preparations during Kargil show, that's a pretty big assumption you're working with.

There's a HUGE 'if' on the use of BF nukes. But the possibility is there, read my post above.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Secondly, regardless of whether Pakistan decides its a limit or not. IN will blockade Pakistan.

How so? Balance of forces and the lack of numbers is certainly not on India's side. IN has to commit forces for her huge coast line and also throw numbers to block Pakistan's coast too.

For those who question the technological ability of IN to carry it out.

No one is questioning IN's technological capability. If PN and IN slug it out in the open sea, PN will get annihilated in a matter of hours. But for coastal defence, i am not so sure. The scenario is a bit similar to USN and PLAN, the defensive weapons that PN possess are quite lethal and can make a serious dent on IN's strategy. The strategy of sea denial is much cheaper than sea supremacy.

Take a flying f*king minute out of your lives to see what IN has and is planning to field against you in case of a war.

Already seen, most of the new fancy toys (P8 and Akula etc) are mostly aimed at China as they hardly provide any advantage against Pakistan.

We have AShM's that out range and outnumber those you have.

Do you mind naming one for me please? I would any day on my life put my money on a Harpoon II compared to any other ASM missile.

IN is also putting a damned Barak 1, Barak II SAM with 70kms range on every capital ship it has. Barak II is supposed to be a MRSAM AEGIS like system for fleet AShM defence. Beyond that there are fighters operated by IN exclusively, not the least of which are operated off a CBG that provide fleet air defence.

Indeed the defence is commendable, but this is where strategy comes in. It will be up to PN war planners on how they manage to break the fleet's defences. PAF with her Mirage III were able to break the defences of USS Kity Hawk and fly past it in a practice exercise, so don't for a second think that IN's fleet will be safe because a US CBG is probably a thousand times better protected than an IN CBG.

No, you will hardly be able to make a dent on IN with the coastal SAM's and warship operated SAM's. The only defence that Pakistan can have is via submarines.

A Harpoon II whether on surface ship or coastal battery is a very serious threat whether you like it or not.

But intelligent Pakistani posters here didnt even mention that once, instead started off counting their AShM's which arent likely to be 10% as effective against an AAW prepared IN.

As i said, this is where strategy comes in.

Lastly, for the uninitiated, IN doesnt need to send ships to even 300kms of your coast to bomb every port that can handle traffic. That initself will mean a blockade of your country. When no country can land their heavy supplies like Oil, Gas, Ammo, Spares, Military equipment at your ports..it means you have been blockaded. Its not like the old days when a ship needs to be parked off your coast to do it.

For an effective blockade, yes IN will need to bring her ships to close down Pakistan's EEZ. IN will need to maintain a continuous presence of her fleet and effectively stop the ingress/egress of civilian ships for it to be considered an effective blockade. The question is how many ships can IN throw at this venture and how many casualties are they willing to accept? A continuous round the clock blockade is going to be an expensive venture in both monetary terms and in terms of blood as PN will continuously harass IN with strikes from the coast, air, sea and under sea .

Infact, blockading Pakistan will be the number 1 act of IN at the declaration of war.

They are more than welcome to. But looking at their posture from 2001 and 2008, it does appear that they want to refrain from it because they know how unfruitful this venture would be.

If i may add here, the assumption is as always that Pakistan will try and make up for its lack of military might by sending in a few terrorists. That will be the cause of war.

Well that is an assumption and an assumption only not backed by any proof .

Cheers