Response to strike from Pak will be very heavy: IAF chief

[Paan Singh]

Nice way to release his frustration, i can sniff it .He has been talking about all this crap for sometime now better the media ask him about the worth of his words , he really is a war mongering person

better than ur hamid gul..

 

[MastanKhan]

To my pakistanis brothers: don't pay attention to childs statement.

Sir,

Are you for real----this man is the commander of the indian air force----and you don't take his words seriously----. Where does BRAVADO ends and sensibile thinking starts.

 

[TOPGUN]

IAF says something. Then PAF says something. Then again IAF says something. Both sides only talk. Its been decade both countries just threatening each other with nukes. Nothing else.

Yes for all our sakes lets hope it only stays that way maybe not for you but for its a big deal for the people in both nations and for the one that have love ones there ... GOD forgive if there is war peace is the way forward for the childeren of tommrow.

 

[IceCold]

IAF says something. Then PAF says something. Then again IAF says something. Both sides only talk. Its been decade both countries just threatening each other with nukes. Nothing else.

What do you want us to do? Bomb each other to radio active waste? By the way can you quote PAF officials making such statements?

 

[Paan Singh]

Hamid Gul is not our airchief. Yours is. So instead of laughing, give it a serious thought about the war mongering your top brass does from time to time. As for the massive response, when the time comes, we will see who gives whom a massive response. Barking dogs seldom bite.

india dont need a bullet to fire to destroy pak.

 

[IceCold]

india dont need a bullet to fire to destroy pak.

My post was in response to someone else. I guess i have quoted you wrongly here.

 

[gubbi]

The Nasr was envisioned as a deterrent to "Cold Start", in which massed Indian columns pushing deep into Pakistani territory, would be attacked with a tactical nuclear device.

It's on their own soil, i.e. a defensive tactical nuke. That does not cross the threshold for an all-out nuclear war.

It does. Any nuclear strike against Indian Army troops anywhere constitutes a 'nuclear strike'. And that in itself crosses the 'threshold'. And that is enough for a retaliation in kind, albeit a massive one. And that means denial of any second strike capability, whatsoever. That being said, only an utterly deranged fool would use nuclear weapons on his own soil.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It does. Any nuclear strike against Indian Army troops anywhere constitutes a 'nuclear strike'.

Well... that is your loss then.

Cold Start, will lead to a nuclear war on the subcontinent.

 

[Mani2020]

better than ur hamid gul..

Now where does he came from? i havn't seen him lately in any of the programs plus he is an ordinary guy , you can't compare him with the man in uniform heading a military arm of a country

 

[harshad]

the chief gave straigh forward answers to straight question asked to him no need to be so much insecure,india has enough capability to back its claim but dont want to to any actions as it doesnt want to lose what it has achieved till now

 

[DMLA]

If Pakistan used a Nasr tactical nuclear weapon, on an Indian column advancing into Pakistani territory (Cold start for example), India would not respond with nuclear weapons.

Because that would risk escalating it into a full-blown nuclear war. Which would destroy everything that India has managed to achieve in the past few decades.

This is the classic stability instability paradox. IF Pakistan "thinks" that India won't retaliate then this creates instability. In order for the situation to remain stable, it is absolutely essential that the Indian side makes it clear how the escalation would take place. Pakistan is also making use of this paradox by not clarifying its position on nuclear threshold which is perfectly OK. However, it is necessary that Pakistan "believes" that India would retaliate else deterrence fails and we have a nuclear war! Both sides need to be absolutely clear that with nuclear weapons in place, their use in a conflict is not possible as its use means failure of deterrence. For example, if Pakistan decides to use its tactical weapons in the hope of stopping Indian forces and India retaliates, the very reason for having these weapons becomes moot (as India would retaliate as per stated position and both countries will be more or less destroyed thanks to the 100 odd weapons). Please note that I am not saying India will retaliate against strategic targets in Pakistan if it uses tactical weapons! Indian decision makers may very well decide against it. However with regard to doctrinal posture, it is necessary for Pakistan to "think" it will in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in the first place (Hence the deterrence)!

 

[LeGenD]

our BMD also gives cruise missile defense take a look friend

Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: Official Schematics Of India's Layered Missile Defence System, Including Cruise Missile Defence [DECLASS]

Indian BMD is still in its early stages. According to some Indian sources, Phase I of your BMD is expected to be achieved in 2012, if everything goes as planned. Therefore, lot of work has to be done yet.

In addition, their is difference between what your BMD 'theoretically can achieve' and 'what happens in reality', depending on several factors. So don't count on it for now.

Also, hints of nuclear retaliation suggest that 'faith on your BMD system' is not very high yet within your military top brass. Do the math.

NEW DELHI: Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik on Tuesday said Pakistan's new tactical nuclear missile or expanding arsenal is of no worry to India.

He said India followed a 'no-first-use' nuclear policy but warned its response would be "very heavy" in the event of any nuclear attack on the country.

The IAF chief's statement came following the news report that Pakistan planned to add 24 nuclear-capable, short-range missiles capable of hitting all major Indian cities to its arsenal this year.

The plan is in line with Pakistan's official policy of having what is rhetorically called "maintaining a minimum deterrence", especially against India, the daily quoted sources as saying.

"Our nuclear policy is of no first use. It also talks about a very heavy response in case of a nuclear attack. It talks about a retaliatory and hard response, our policy talks about that," Naik, who demits office this Sunday, told a press conference, PTI reported.

Naik was responding to a query on the new Pakistani tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr' which is touted to be a 'game-changer' in future warfare.

He did not agree that the new missile will be a 'game-changer'.

"Tactical or strategic, it is a nuclear weapon. So, obviously our response would be absolutely violent as per our existing policy. I don't think it is a game-changer," he added.

Pakistan recently successfully tested 'Nasr', a short-range nuclear capable ballistic missile which can hit targets in the range of 60 kms.

Asked if there was any need to be concerned over the assessment in some quarters that Pakistan had an edge over India in terms of the nuclear warheads, the IAF chief said, "there is no need to be worried on this."

Meanwhile, responding to a query on the role of HAL, Naik said that the aerospace PSU had provided great support to the IAF in the last 50-60 years.

He said already some steps were being initiated by the government to streamline the procedures in the company for "improving the quality".

Link :

Response to strike from Pak will be very heavy: IAF chief - The Times of India

Why do these guys always assume that a missile strike from across the border would always carry a nuclear warhead?

Tactical missile strikes on forces would unlikely trigger a full-blown nuclear war. These words sound like empty threats or pressure tactics. More likely, similar tit-for-tat response can be expected.

Military leaders cannot make the decision of all out nuclear retaliation on their own. They need approval of the nuclear committee or something.

All out nuclear retaliation is most likely to occur when population centers are targeted with nuclear weapons.

Also, what about policy on depleted uranium ammunition? Would that validate heavy nuclear retaliation too? Idiots

 

[Tija]

No need to worry. Those Indian nukes will only be used as patakas for their diwali.

While Pakistan's nukes can destroy india forever.

Pehele aapne liye khana kahinse jugaad karlo uske baad Indiako Destruct karna

 

[DV RULES]

Lack of maturity & responsibility, India should spend money for providing extra qualifications to top officials. IAF chief should realize that, he is not hosting STAR PLUS or ZEE TV program.

 

[RockyX]

If Pakistan used a Nasr tactical nuclear weapon, on an Indian column advancing into Pakistani territory (Cold start for example), India would not respond with nuclear weapons.

Because that would risk escalating it into a full-blown nuclear war. Which would destroy everything that India has managed to achieve in the past few decades.

If Pakistan will attack on Border Area with whatever missile (Nuke). That will be considered as Nuke Against nation. That is our Policy since long time. No one should doubt on that.

We have Multiple SAM world-class (S-300, Akash, Barak-8 and Akash-2 will be inducted soon). Then 2 Layers of ABM is also under-development phase (300 KM to 5,500 KM). What about our Multiple and Many Offensive Missiles ?

Anyway, IAF chief said " If Pakistan will attack with Nuke, then India will retaliate with Heavy Nuke" . He didn't said " India will attack 1st". we have "No First Use" Policy as of Now. He replied as per question which is correct.