Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

[Secur]

You can keep going around in circles, blowing your own trumpet .asking the same question over and over again..but the answer will remain the same, answer to which is clearly mentioned Indian nuclear doctrine.

Once you use nuclear weapons even a battlefield ones..India will be forced to use it's.

And if even for second you assume, it would not respond to a nuclear strike on its forces with a nuclear response...you would have proven yourself to be bigger fools than your general, who assumed India will not cross international border, If Pakistan attacked India Kashmir back in 65 or the ones who underestimated Indian response to Pakistani infiltrators in Kargil.

I am not going around in circles , you just seem incapable of answering a simple question with a rational answer I am asking all along ... What you have been saying is that Indian nuclear doctrine ( yes , on paper , it does ) asks for the annihilation of a billion people for the prestige of a invading army , so much for being so democratic ... ...

Yeah , what makes you think that we will not get ready to launch it on your cities after the initial battlefield strike ? ... Respond in nuclear and start a MAD chain , retreat your army and there's still chance for everyone's survival , which one is better ?

Apples and Oranges , mate ... I assume as much , because IA will consider it better to ' abort ' the Cold Start than to start a MAD scenario , Pakistani strike isn't going to happen on Indian cities at first and hence no threat to India's existence and no reason to launch nukes on Pakistani cities ... '65 was a different affair , no unconventional capability back then on both sides ... Remind me , why didn't you dare to cross the LOC in '99 even when your Generals openly asked for it to minimize losses ? The same Pakistani determination and will to launch first has prevented war three times until now ... Better accept the reality ...

 

[ares]

I am not going around in circles , you just seem incapable of answering a simple question with a rational answer I am asking all along ... What you have been saying is that Indian nuclear doctrine ( yes , on paper , it does ) asks for the annihilation of a billion people for the prestige of a invading army , so much for being so democratic ... ...

Yeah , what makes you think that we will not get ready to launch it on your cities after the initial battlefield strike ? ... Respond in nuclear and start a MAD chain , retreat your army and there's still chance for everyone's survival , which one is better ?

Apples and Oranges , mate ... I assume as much , because IA will consider it better to ' abort ' the Cold Start than to start a MAD scenario , Pakistani strike isn't going to happen on Indian cities at first ... '65 was a different affair , no unconventional capability back then on both sides ... Remind me , why didn't you dare to cross the LOC in '99 even when your Generals openly asked for it to minimize losses ? The same Pakistani determination and will to launch first has prevented war three times until now ... Better accept the reality ...

And I have been giving you rational response all along.

The one mentioned in Indian "No first Use" doctrine...It is only your foolishness that leads you to assume a declared doctrine as merely words on Paper.

Nuclear weapons are not toys, if you choose use them first, be ready for a Nuclear response.

 

[Secur]

And I have been giving you rational response all along.

The one mentioned in Indian "No first Use" doctrine...It is only your foolishness that leads you to assume a declared doctrine as merely words on Paper.

Nuclear weapons are not toys, if you choose use them first, be ready for a Nuclear response.

Not really ...

Yes , it is along with a lot of things , but you have to accept the fact that some things mentioned in the doctrine are neither feasible nor rational ...

Get ready for the second ... We ai'nt gonna wait ...

 

[ares]

Not really ...

Yes , it is along with a lot of things , but you have to accept the fact that some things mentioned in the doctrine are neither feasible nor rational ...

Get ready for the second ... We ai'nt gonna wait ...

Again your 'assumptions' about the 'enemy response'..is what has defeated you in the past too

Infact we are counting on you, that you will be wanting to launch second strike..that is why

‘Massive’ defined as taking out the adversary’s ability to retaliate

Non extensive first use by Pakistan in this case would require that India respond with ‘first strike’ levels of retaliation with a mixed counter force, decapitation and counter value targets. This would leave Pakistan with little to counter strike with other than a limited capability.

It would likely therefore respond with vengeance attacks to the extent possible. These would be suppressed by India with nuclear or conventional means but only after the fact. Thus it would eventually suffer considerable counter value damage amounting to ‘unacceptable’ levels.

Even if India would have won the ‘nuclear war’, it would have lost the war politically. Therefore even if Pakistan does not exist as a coherent nation state thereafter, it would be of little consolation to India and certainly not in Indian national interest.

 

[Secur]

Again your 'assumptions' about the 'enemy response'..is what has defeated you in the past too

Infact we are counting on you, that you will be wanting to launch second strike..that is why

Not my assumptions , if history is any indication , your country has always backed off after the threat of a nuclear war by Pakistan ...

Again , you are doubting the second strike capability which even the Americans dont and assuming near 100 % success rate by Indian retaliatory attacks ( assuming that India doesn't launch nukes on Pakistani cities ) when SPD will be on high alert We have 100 warheads , not two enemies like you ... Which direction they will be headed then ? There will be no limited capability on both sides , we have enough to commit suicide mutually ...

Retreat , save a billion or continue , risk a billion , which one would you chose ?

P.S Tell me one thing , how does your lot assume that India still exists / or exists as a coherent nation ( quoting from the article ) after the nuclear war ?

 

[ares]

Not my assumptions , if history is any indication , your country has always backed off after the threat of a nuclear war by Pakistan ...

Yes we have backed off from a Nuclear conflict, because we are sane..but once you have already used Nuclear weapons ..there can be no further backing off.We are already in Nuclear war.
Pakistani fist strike will sure as hell, spawn a nuclear retaliations.

Again , you are doubting the second strike capability which even the Americans dont and assuming near 100 % success rate by Indian retaliatory attacks ( assuming that India doesn't launch nukes on Pakistani cities ) when SPD will be on high alert We have 100 warheads , not two enemies like you ... Which direction they will be headed then ? There will be no limited capability on both sides , we have enough to commit suicide mutually ...

We are not assuming hundred percent success...we know..we will not be able to wipe out all your weapons in first strike..there fore the stress on getting as many weapons, as we can by any and all means.
For as many weapons we destroy, are that many weapons that can not be used against us.

Retreat , save a billion or continue , risk a billion , which one would you chose ?

There will be no retreat, once you open the "Pandora's box".

You can save billions too by not initiating a nuclear conflict in the first place.

P.S Tell me one thing , how does your lot assume that India still exists / or exists as a coherent nation ( quoting from the article ) after the nuclear war ?

If you have read properly, in the above scenario...we will relying on our massive strike to take out most of your weapons.

We will be using missile defenses to protect out major cities. Now you could choose overwhelm those defenses by multiple weapons launch against the same target. But then again..you have only so many weapons.

Because we are 7 times larger nation than you..you will have to use 7 times the number of weapons(which you don't have) to cause equivalent damage to us.

 

[Mav3rick]

Not my assumptions , if history is any indication , your country has always backed off after the threat of a nuclear war by Pakistan ...

Again , you are doubting the second strike capability which even the Americans dont and assuming near 100 % success rate by Indian retaliatory attacks ( assuming that India doesn't launch nukes on Pakistani cities ) when SPD will be on high alert We have 100 warheads , not two enemies like you ... Which direction they will be headed then ? There will be no limited capability on both sides , we have enough to commit suicide mutually ...

Retreat , save a billion or continue , risk a billion , which one would you chose ?

P.S Tell me one thing , how does your lot assume that India still exists / or exists as a coherent nation ( quoting from the article ) after the nuclear war ?

In case of a Nuclear war, God forbid, Indians would only be found in countries other than India and so the scenario of a coherent nation of NRI's (still Indians) would be technically correct, I guess.

 

[Secur]

Yes we have backed off from a Nuclear conflict, because we are sane ...

We are not assuming hundred percent success...we know..we will not be able to wipe out all your weapons in first strike..there fore the stress on getting as many weapons, as we can by any and all means.For as many weapons we destroy, are that many weapons that can not be used against us.


There will be no retreat, once you open the "Pandora's box".

You can save billions too by not initiating a nuclear conflict in the first place.

If you have read properly, in the above scenario...we will relying on our massive strike to take out most of your weapons. We will be using missile defenses to protect out major cities. Now you could choose overwhelm those defenses by multiple weapons launch against the same target. But then again..you have only so many weapons.

Because we are 7 times larger nation than you..you will have to use 7 times the number of weapons(which you don't have) to cause equivalent damage to us.

Then , we are more saner since we didn't mobilize troops , threatened you and prevented a war by nuclear threat !

Well , it appears that you are ... There's no way that some strike is going to massively hamper Pakistan's nuclear strike capability ( Both First and Second ) ... Forget about it , the units are mobile and will be on high alert by then ... Pakistan will use a battlefield nuke and wait for your response , retreat and the war is over ... Continue and the subcontinent is doomed ... First Strike will not wipe any weapons , never has been able to do so , they aren't stored above the ground at some base! How will you know the exact location of the nukes ? Even the PAF or PA or PN wont be sleeping ... You will still face resistance by conventional means ...

You place too much faith in your not-yet-operational missile shield which even the major powers do not ... We can easily overwhelm it , what enough weapons do not we have , unless of course you assume 1 missile / warhead ... The numbers of warheads are ever increasing ! So , no luck there ... India will cease to exist in both cases !

Well , get ready for MAD then ... You can prevent the whole thing by not implementing a highly flawed doctrine in the first place

 

[ares]

Then , we are more saner since we didn't mobilize troops , threatened you and prevented a war by nuclear threat !

Oh my, when did that happen?Are you not even familiar your own history?

Well , it appears that you are ... There's no way that some strike is going to massively hamper Pakistan's nuclear strike capability ( Both First and Second ) ... Forget about it , the units are mobile and will be on high alert by then ... Pakistan will use a battlefield nuke and wait for your response , retreat and the war is over ... Continue and the subcontinent is doomed ... First Strike will not wipe any weapons , never has been able to do so , they aren't stored above the ground at some base! How will you know the exact location of the nukes ? Even the PAF or PA or PN wont be sleeping ... You will still face resistance by conventional means ...

Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.Hopefully your generals will have more sense than to delve themselves in false sense of security, before embarking on Nuclear adventurism.

You place too much faith in your not-yet-operational missile shield which even the major powers do not ... We can easily overwhelm it , unless of course you assume 1 missile / warhead ... The numbers of warheads are ever increasing ! So , no luck there ...

Again your own opinion, but experts disagree.

Well , get ready for MAD then ... You can prevent the whole thing by not implementing a highly flawed doctrine in the first place

We are ready for MAD.
Doctrine will only put in place, if Pakistan is unable to control its terrorist assets or it general's adventurism.

 

[arp2041]

Well actually contrary to what this naive writer thinks. It is an excellent idea to prevent a nuclear war in south asia. Pakistan's strategy is to make sure that there should not be a full scale or limited scale war in the region what so ever. The only way to ensure that is to make sure that if war breaks out adversary gets unbearable loss of life and equipment. So tactical nukes ensures that no aggression takes place because if it does aggressor will be left with bleeding nose.

On the first place it was Pakistan itself that started a limited conflict in Kargil even after the 2 nations became nuclear power in 1998, thinking that possessing nukes would deter India from retaliating, which proved to be wrong. The point is even the possession of nukes cannot stop nations from fighting a limited conflict like the US & USSR did at the height of cold war in cuba, Afghanistan & elsewhere.

 

[arp2041]

Pakistan's generals are well aware that in any all-out conventional confrontation with India, they're toast.

Race to the End - By Tom Hundley | Foreign Policy

Raise a toast to that......

 

[Ticker]

I really wish that the West would "de-link" India and Pakistan. It is only through the wishes of the Pakstani side that the two are still compared again and again. India has moved beyond Paksitan and this narrative, with an economy 8-9 times larger growing at an impressive rate with ambitions of global stardom and a military to match this continually comparing India and Pakistan is humiliating for both sides. I have said it before but I'll say it again- you wouldn't compare India to Beligum who has a similar defence expediture and GDP to Pakstan (in fairness to Beligum it has a significantly larger GDP and slightly higher defence budget but it is relatively close to Pakistan.). It is unfortunate geography for the two nations to cotinuously be compared like this.


The author makes the point that "their is a potential for an arms race between India and Pakistan" making out this as happend already. If we look at the reality we will see that any potential race between these two has already been won by India whether it is size of conventional forces,delivery systems for nukes, economy, economic growth etc and the gap between the two is only increasing day by day and at this point and in the future is now complety unbridgable. Despite this, for reasons stated in the article, Pakstan makes the most nukes every year of any nation but India lets this happen and despite having the resources and stockpile of material avaloble does nothing in response. This highlights who fears who more.


Now I'm not a Pakistani but I feel if I was I'd be incredibly unhappy with my nation being continuously compared and belittled in this way. Pakistan shouldn't be compared to India but Bangledsh,Afghanistan, Tajikstan,Turkey etc it is unfair for all involved.

My two cents anyway.

Most of what you said is actually not more than worth two cents. Let me tell you why.

I agree with you that India and Pakistan should not be compared in any capacity - the world de-link is in any case is falsely premised as these two countries are not linked in the manner except the unfortunate fact of being neighbours.

The only thing you Indians cheer about is growth of your economy which only just started growing, irrespective of the fact that over 50% of Indians still live in repulsive poverty conditions. Permanence of such economic growth can not always be ensured. The world is in recession and great economies are finding difficult even to survive under the current environment. Indian economy has also dipped to about just above 5%.

Indian is surrounded from three sides by powerful nuclear states, China and Pakistan and therefore is unable to exercise its power potential even in the region except against small countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Sri lanka and Bangladesh, if at all. The only side it can attempt to expand its power is the sea. Here also, in the presence of more powerful navies, Indian Navy can only act as a second fiddle.

To access Central Asia, it has opted to go through Iran, which is a pariah state for India's friends in the US and the west. Indian Navy can not establish naval blockade of Malacca straits, the Gulf, Bab el Mandib etc at Andaman & Nicobar because of these being world commons. It can not afford to establish naval blockade of Pakistan because Pakistan has already openly declared it as one of its nuclear thresholds, and not to mention US and Chinese interests.

Yes India would be able to exercise its power if the others around it, play dead and the time stands still. Can't happen.

India is all dressed up but nowhere to go.

Umm, hardly- it was Dr MMS back in '91 when Convress were in power who started the reforms, and over the last 20 years when India has averaged 8-9% growth for 8 years the country as been under Congress rule with Dr MMS at the helm. I'm not a Cngress supporter but you can't put out this nonsense and expect it to go unchallenged.

The growth under the same MMS has now come down to slightly over 5%. The poverty is still over 50% - though India has changed the definition of poverty and has attempted to fool the world by statistical jiggery-pokery and shows that its poverty level has been brought drown. MMS has not only fooled the world, it has fooled its own people as well.

 

[AUz]

.
We are ready for MAD.
Doctrine will only put in place, if Pakistan is unable to control its terrorist assets or it general's adventurism.

O.K , your choice.

When you are fully mentally-ready to be annihilated , just send your boys over the border. We'll do the rest to cause Sub-continent to be doomed forever.

On a serious note : bhartis don't have enough balls to mess with Pakistan , in any case. Your generals like their heavy pays , your bureaucrats like their kickbacks in defense deals , and your politicians like their black money..that they extract from the already starving masses of india. So though you are ready for "MAD" , I don't think the people mentioned above are ....

Most of what you said is actually not more than worth two cents. Let me tell you why.

I agree with you that India and Pakistan should not be compared in any capacity - the world de-link is in any case is falsely premised as these two countries are not linked in the manner except the unfortunate fact of being neighbours.

The only thing you Indians cheer about is growth of your economy which only just started growing, irrespective of the fact that over 50% of Indians still live in repulsive poverty conditions. Permanence of such economic growth can not always be ensured. The world is in recession and great economies are finding difficult even to survive under the current environment. Indian economy has also dipped to about just above 5%.

Indian is surrounded from three sides by powerful nuclear states, China and Pakistan and therefore is unable to exercise its power potential even in the region except against small countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Sri lanka and Bangladesh, if at all. The only side it can attempt to expand its power is the sea. Here also, in the presence of more powerful navies, Indian Navy can only act as a second fiddle.

To access Central Asia, it has opted to go through Iran, which is a pariah state for India's friends in the US and the west. Indian Navy can not establish naval blockade of Malacca straits, the Gulf, Bab el Mandib etc at Andaman & Nicobar because of these being world commons. It can not afford to establish naval blockade of Pakistan because Pakistan has already openly declared it as one of its nuclear thresholds, and not to mention US and Chinese interests.

Yes India would be able to exercise its power if the others around it, play dead and the time stands still. Can't happen.

India is all dressed up but nowhere to go.




The growth under the same MMS has now come down to slightly over 5%. The poverty is still over 50% - though India has changed the definition of poverty and has attempted to fool the world by statistical jiggery-pokery and shows that its poverty level has been brought drown. MMS has not only fooled the world, it has fooled its own people as well.

NO! NO! NO!

You are breaking bhartis' hearts ...

Indians are brainwashed into believing myths....don't give them too heavy dose of reality

 

[ares]

O.K , your choice.

When you are fully mentally-ready to be annihilated , just send your boys over the border. We'll do the rest to cause Sub-continent to be doomed forever.

On a serious note : bhartis don't have enough balls to mess with Pakistan , in any case. Your generals like their heavy pays , your bureaucrats like their kickbacks in defense deals , and your politicians like their black money..that they extract from the already starving masses of india. So though you are ready for "MAD" , I don't think the people mentioned above are ....

Well Obviously, unlike you we are not suicidal bunch of maniacs..but neither we will tolerate you providing nuclear umbrella to your terror activities.

So the question remains are your ready to see, your entire country destroyed, just to support a bunch of terrorists?

Your Nuclear brinkmanship is useless beyond a certain thresh hold level.

As if you and your General(who live far more luxurious life than Indian genreals) will have the balls to nuke India..especially after knowing the fact..that this will be last thing they will ever do!!

 

[TopCat]

India is doomed...