dray
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,853
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
The Limited Military Utility of Pakistan’s "Battlefield Use" of Nuclear Weapons
- Thread starter HRK
- Start date
danger007
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,007
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
you want to tag ASHM as carrier killer.. just because India getting more carriers... how can CM 400 travel 240km with just 150-200 kg fuel...Still you don't get it don't you.
It will be a lethal weapon against IN but one must not forget that it also reduce response time of PAF against static inland targets in India, as it gives them capability to strike from safe distance with rapid speed.
don't forget jf 17 don't have capabilities to scan and track IM vessels from 300 to 400km distance. . ... it must be rely on AWACS... what if awac is shot down??? JF 17 can launch the missile @0.7 or 0.9 mach... can it get chance to slow down to launch this missile.. don't you think Indian awacs detect jf 17 when it airborne. .. jf 17 need to face superior mig 29...
shaheenmissile
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
CM400 is not a nuclear weapon but a shaped chrge hitting a ship at mach 5 can cause serious damage.
I don't think fighter aircraft have ever successfully and completely destroyed nuclear facilities. Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor was a different game. Iraq was still developing their nuclear technologies at that time and Israel used covert operations (read Mossad) to knock them out. Pakistan has 100+ nukes, go figure.
Nuclear weapons are stored in extremely safe environments. Its not like if you know where they are, you just fire some bombs and you destroy them. US and half of the world hates us for our nukes. If it were so easy to destroy them, without fear of retaliation, US would have already done that by now.
Secondly, any attack on nuclear facilities will most likely result in radiation spreading in the area. Which means that the attacker has to calculate the civilian cost in this attack.
So now, people thinking that any air force can just destroy Pakistan's (or anyother country with nukes) capabilities is day dreaming.
Knight Rider
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,359
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Dude I am Pakistani.I was not talking about Destroying Pakistan Nuclear Facilities , i was talking about Destroying indian Nuclear Facilities with stealth fighters with some anti-radiation missiles.
Dude I am Pakistani.I was not talking about Destroying Pakistan Nuclear Facilities , i was talking about Destroying indian Nuclear Facilities with stealth fighters with some anti-radiation missiles.
Haha I know that you are from Pakistan my friend. What I wanted to say was that its not easy to destroy established nuclear capabilities of any country and I used Pakistan as an example.
Actually i have re calculated now. nothing .......absolutely nothing in the world can destroy that retrofitted piece of russian junk metal that our neighbours has for aircraft carier.....
Air craft carier ... lol
The idea of the nukes is NOT battlefied utility. It is their utility as ambiguity agents when it comes to the nuclear threshold. Essentially playing upon India's own policy of massive retaliation if a single nuke hits. Hence, the idea that a single nuke will incur an all out strike by India which Pakistan is already ready and waiting for is the gambit to prevent a major attack by India in the first place.
newdelhinsa
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,923
- Reaction score
- -2
And in 1971 ?
Can't you see from his posts, he is still fighting for Pakistan.
What if pak uses battlefield nukes against all airports and nuclear fascilities in one massive strike in bid to wipe out indian 2nd strike capability??...
I mean far more humane solution since it will caz very little loss of civilian life....
I mean far more humane solution since it will caz very little loss of civilian life....
ares
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,483
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Pakistan does not even have a theoretical ability to wipe out India's second strike capability, for the simple reason ..
1. India has a huge landmass, four times larger than Pakistan's, but equivalent number of nukes.
2. Even the longest range Pakistani missiles launched from the furthest point in Pakistani territory does not cover entire Indian territory..there are large parts of North Eastern Indian and Andaman Nicobar are still outside Pakistani missile ranges..Agni 5 or Agni 3 missile if placed in A&N islands or N.E..can still wipe out entire Pakistan.
3. India plans to deploy major portion of its nuclear arsenal at sea, 4 SSBNs each carrying 12 Nukes in near future(making them almost invulnerable to Pakistani first strike)..one is in sea trials to be inducted with in next few months, two hulls under construction.
On top of it some surface ships of Indian Navy have been modified to fire ballistic missiles mostly for testing purposes, but they can also fire nuclear missile if required.
However if the roles are reversed..were India to launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistani nuclear launch sites, storage facilities and command and control..theoretically far more successful decapitating strike is possible.
Making it a far more 'humane' solution.
Last edited:
