Should Pakistan Navy acquire carrier kill missile

[deltacamelately]

That's why BM like DF-21D can turnout to be disastrous on the user itself........lets say a similar missile is launched from somewhere in a valley from FATA region.........it would create a havoc in India, U.S.A., Isreal..etc.....via satellite detection of the launch.....and could be followed by a massive nuclear counter attack by all of them.....even if the missile were to fall in Arabian sea with some conventional warhead intended to destroy an AC.......not to mention the continuous increase increase in Nations who are using satellite imagery for military use.....take a case of Chinese using DF-2D and one can see nukes/other bombs flying from all over......i.e....Russia, U.S.A., Japan, Tiwan, India, Britain, France and so on.....such assets are more of showpiece.......a cruise missile is far-far more useful than those white elephants.

DARY Reply,

I repeat again. There is no such thing as launch on detection. It will always remain launch on impact. You don't launch nukes as per your whims and fancies. As per Stuart Slade, One flies - All fly. Care taking the hint?

 

[DARKY]

DARY Reply,

I repeat again. There is no such thing as launch on detection. It will always remain launch on impact. You don't launch nukes as per your whims and fancies. As per Stuart Slade, One flies - All fly. Care taking the hint?

Sir,
During cold war days.....when the tensions were high......they still maintained a communication link......to avoid any misunderstanding....between them......they went upto the extent of decreasing the deployed nuclear warheads during later stages....I guess they realized their responsibility towards mankind...however we don't have such a co-operation between the newer nuclear armed rivals.......even though if I am not wrong the GOI and GOP......both exchange the sites of deployed nuclear weapons on the 1st day of each year......but we all know such a list=BS considering the military dependent regime and mistrust between the governments.........Now with the advancement in satellite tracking and launch detection technologies......I wonder what might be the devised strategy of current governments.......In case I agree with you that a single/double launch might be allowed to reach terminal/impact stages......however a salvo launch of more than 4-6 missiles would really bring immediate nuclear retaliation into prospective.......any government won't wait for the Impact to take place in such circumstances I guess.........even either ways both situation might also be death with massive conventional retaliation to wipe out the nukes deployed by the opponent.....before they are used.

Thanks
DARKY

 

[SQ8]

Santro,

There's nothing called Launch on detection. It will always be launch on impact. The Big 2 never practised launch on detection and thus averted exchanges atleast thrice, during the Cold War. Rest of the nuclear powers have a way way higher launch threshold and no way in hell to avert launch detections by either the Russian or the American Strategic Nuclear Command.

Delta, what then would be the cause of the cancellation of arming the US trident SLBM's with conventional warheads?
With Putin issuing a statement on the consequences of such a move being interpreted as a launch of a nuclear warhead.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China has test-fired the DF-21D already, without much incident.

The existence of second-strike capability, means that firing on detection was no longer necessary even during the Cold War.

(Otherwise the world would have ended already, due to several high-profile "false alerts" in history).

If a country is known to have ASBM, then it lessens the probability even further that it could be mistaken for a nuke.

Plus, a "first strike" would almost always involve an enormous amount of nuclear missiles.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Interesting read:

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to a computer error, the Soviet Union's satellite systems detected four ICBM's heading from the USA to the Soviet Union. During one of the most strained periods of the Cold War.

Petrov correctly identified it as a false alert, because a "first strike" by the USA would involve hundreds of missiles, not four.

 

[deckingraj]

Interesting read:

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to a computer error, the Soviet Union's satellite systems detected four ICBM's heading from the USA to the Soviet Union. During one of the most strained periods of the Cold War.

Petrov correctly identified it as a false alert, because a "first strike" by the USA would involve hundreds of missiles, not four.

These are the first four lines

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станислав Евграфович Петро&#1074 (born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who deviated from standard Soviet protocol by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1] This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies. Investigation of the satellite warning system later confirmed that the system had malfunctioned.

In short there is a danger that a conventional ballistic missile can be mistaken to be a nuclear tipped missile...I believe that is the point being raised here....

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

These are the first four lines

In short there is a danger that a conventional ballistic missile can be mistaken to be a nuclear tipped missile...I believe that is the point being raised here....

That was the old Soviet policy during the most strained moments of the Cold War. No longer applies.

In any case, China has already tested the DF-21D against sea targets, in a direction that could be perceived as an attack on several nations. No problems at all.

I don't think any nation today has a "fire on detection" policy anymore, and certainly not for one missile.

Like I said, a "nuclear first strike" would involve hundreds of nuclear attacks, not one, or even four. If the nation is known to have ASBM, then it is even less likely.

 

[nomi007]

we already have huge variates of missiles
pak navy is getting advance Chinese fast attack craft that are the best

 

[deltacamelately]

Santro, DARKY Reply,

What it means is, that no power is going to risk an assumed nuclear 2nd strike just on detection. The odds are just too high, as they say, you launch nukes without nuclear forensics validating an impact and you just lost the war. It is an accepted escalation matrix. It will be considered 100% irresponsible and by extention a rogue act by a nuclear power, small or being, to launch pre-emptive nukes on detection/assumptions and hence the inevitable reprisal from where not. It warrants immediate response. No relevant power, specially the US cannot allow the protagonist, time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke, including the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be identical. Heck, even the Chinese would throw in everyhing, including the kitchen sink.

Though I have personally debated on this many times over at other places, there's seems an unanimous agreement on the analysis of Mr. Stuart Slade, who is a nuclear targeteer, stating that a 1st strike(defacto 1st launched on detection), if it is not forensically verified that the previous was nuke as well, would invite an immediate counter and devastating nuclear response. There's no choice in the matter. When one flies, they all fly. The N5 have to guarantee that any remaining nuclear assets must be destroyed and that means 3 nukes per target. The total number will be more in our case, as both the Indian and the Pakistani nukes are kept in component form.

 

[Vibs]

Santro, DARKY Reply,

What it means is, that no power is going to risk an assumed nuclear 2nd strike just on detection. The odds are just too high, as they say, you launch nukes without nuclear forensics validating an impact and you just lost the war. It is an accepted escalation matrix. It will be considered 100% irresponsible and by extention a rogue act by a nuclear power, small or being, to launch pre-emptive nukes on detection/assumptions and hence the inevitable reprisal from where not. It warrants immediate response. No relevant power, specially the US cannot allow the protagonist, time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke, including the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be identical. Heck, even the Chinese would throw in everyhing, including the kitchen sink.

Though I have personally debated on this many times over at other places, there's seems an unanimous agreement on the analysis of Mr. Stuart Slade, who is a nuclear targeteer, stating that a 1st strike(defacto 1st launched on detection), if it is not forensically verified that the previous was nuke as well, would invite an immediate counter and devastating nuclear response. There's no choice in the matter. When one flies, they all fly. The N5 have to guarantee that any remaining nuclear assets must be destroyed and that means 3 nukes per target. The total number will be more in our case, as both the Indian and the Pakistani nukes are kept in component form.

No one is going to wait and verify a first strike beyond a few first impression analysis. Infact we came close to disaster a few years ago.
Asteroid Impact Could Have Triggered India-Pakistan Nuclear War, General Says

 

[deltacamelately]

Delta, what then would be the cause of the cancellation of arming the US trident SLBM's with conventional warheads?
With Putin issuing a statement on the consequences of such a move being interpreted as a launch of a nuclear warhead.

Santro,

The Trident SLBMs(Both T-1 C4 as well as T-II D5) have been the mainstay for the US Strategic Command since 1981. Their boomers, the Ohio-class SSBNs are equipped with Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) receivers that allow them to remain in essentially constant contact with the shore. This contra dicts the Cold War strategic truism that SSBNs/SSKs are difficult to communicate with. In fact, the Ohio classs SSBN communications are essentially equivalent in speed and reliability with that of ICBM with hardenedd silos. This is probably one of the major reasons for the Russians to oppose their arming with conventional munition, so vehemently. Imagine yourslef to be a Russian Admiral having detected a C-4 or D-5 heading your way, while being clueless whether it is armed conventionally or otherwise. As I said, NO sane commander wants to get into such a sh!tty st!cky plac, not knowing what is in his way and with what he should respond.

As a metter of fact, the Ohios will remain the backbone of the American deterrent force under START II, with half of the USN's deployed strategic warheads. The key advantage and in a way, disadvantage of these weapons is that they are essentially invulnerable, and, according to the US General Accounting Office, there are no technologies in sight that will threaten them. Indeed, the Ohio class boats are even more difficult to detect than previously thought and hence the Russian's chagrin.

 

[deltacamelately]

No one is going to wait and verify a first strike beyond a few first impression analysis. Infact we came close to disaster a few years ago.
Asteroid Impact Could Have Triggered India-Pakistan Nuclear War, General Says

Vibs Reply

Spare me of this hogwash, will you? You contemplate nukes flying eitherway because of a space charcoal? There are a number of well read scientists in both our countries who have been studying research papers on Thermobaric weapons and guess what, there is no way in hell in the first couple of hours of the impact, that you can differentiate between the two. So NO, our respective launch commanders are NOT going to make a jackass of themselves.

 

[SQ8]

Santro,

The Trident SLBMs(Both T-1 C4 as well as T-II D5) have been the mainstay for the US Strategic Command since 1981. Their boomers, the Ohio-class SSBNs are equipped with Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) receivers that allow them to remain in essentially constant contact with the shore. This contra dicts the Cold War strategic truism that SSBNs/SSKs are difficult to communicate with. In fact, the Ohio classs SSBN communications are essentially equivalent in speed and reliability with that of ICBM with hardenedd silos. This is probably one of the major reasons for the Russians to oppose their arming with conventional munition, so vehemently. Imagine yourslef to be a Russian Admiral having detected a C-4 or D-5 heading your way, while being clueless whether it is armed conventionally or otherwise. As I said, NO sane commander wants to get into such a sh!tty st!cky plac, not knowing what is in his way and with what he should respond.

As a metter of fact, the Ohios will remain the backbone of the American deterrent force under START II, with half of the USN's deployed strategic warheads. The key advantage and in a way, disadvantage of these weapons is that they are essentially invulnerable, and, according to the US General Accounting Office, there are no technologies in sight that will threaten them. Indeed, the Ohio class boats are even more difficult to detect than previously thought and hence the Russian's chagrin.

The apparently though.. the Trident MIRV's are slightly less accurate than their land launched cousins(although if a strike on a city is considered.. it really should not matter),
Which brings us back to the DF-21D and Pakistan.
Any such launch from the coast of Pakistan.. whether or not its flight profile is different.. will head west, and since India extends all the way to the south, anything flying like that towards it from the east should come under the presumption of a nuclear armed weapon.

 

[Vibs]

Vibs Reply

Spare me of this hogwash, will you? You contemplate nukes flying eitherway because of a space charcoal? There are a number of well read scientists in both our countries who have been studying research papers on Thermobaric weapons and guess what, there is no way in hell in the first couple of hours of the impact, that you can differentiate between the two. So NO, our respective launch commanders are NOT going to make a jackass of themselves.

So what you are telling me is that if an asteroid fell in either country near a populated region with a 10 Kiloton explosion, leaders from either side will wait for 2 hours to react?
Or are you implying that the leaders and army chief's of either side would consult eminent scientists to know if it was a nuclear blast?
No wait,Iknow, they will go to the site with geiger counters to measure for radioactivity!!!!
These explosions are rare and will not be the first guess of anybody. Even an explosion of a kiloton yield is supposed to be an indication of a nuclear incident.
BTW to have an idea of what it looks like read this
Tunguska 1908 SIBERIA EXPLOSION: History, Theories, Eywitness Accounts, asteroid impact

 

[DARKY]

Santro, DARKY Reply,

What it means is, that no power is going to risk an assumed nuclear 2nd strike just on detection. The odds are just too high, as they say, you launch nukes without nuclear forensics validating an impact and you just lost the war. It is an accepted escalation matrix. It will be considered 100% irresponsible and by extention a rogue act by a nuclear power, small or being, to launch pre-emptive nukes on detection/assumptions and hence the inevitable reprisal from where not. It warrants immediate response. No relevant power, specially the US cannot allow the protagonist, time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke, including the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be identical. Heck, even the Chinese would throw in everyhing, including the kitchen sink.

Though I have personally debated on this many times over at other places, there's seems an unanimous agreement on the analysis of Mr. Stuart Slade, who is a nuclear targeteer, stating that a 1st strike(defacto 1st launched on detection), if it is not forensically verified that the previous was nuke as well, would invite an immediate counter and devastating nuclear response. There's no choice in the matter. When one flies, they all fly. The N5 have to guarantee that any remaining nuclear assets must be destroyed and that means 3 nukes per target. The total number will be more in our case, as both the Indian and the Pakistani nukes are kept in component form.

Sir,

Emphasizing on your post and bold parts.......I would like to put forward a few points on being 100% sure about the launch being a Nuclear one......one is the early detection or boost phase detection which provide a little more time on decision making......second is that there are technologies that can detect the amount radiation being emitted from a warhead and determine its type using radiation detectors in low orbit satellites.......how ever it would be absurd to say that any nation other than U.S.A. has such technologies but.....it wouldn't be long that even countries like India would be using them to validate an early launch.......Just in case......such methods of tracking a nuclear weaponry was used by Americans during early 90s when there was a risk of......mini nukes designed to fit in a small container by KGB......falling into unlawful hands/terrorists.

Again relating to the validity/purpose of a DF-21D in modern day battlefield brings a question.......why would China risk launching a BM which can be seen as a threat to NATO bases and deployment in the region and risk out a nuclear war.....with them......if they could probably shoo away a CVBG in Russian style by making their subs surface in front of American eyes and having a small meeting with their commander with their destroyers in vicinity.

I agree with you on the point that ONE GOES ALL GOES........ that's what makes tactical nukes like DF-21D and Naser utter BS.......when there are far cheaper and less risky weapon systems available.

Thanks,
DARKY