What is Pakistan's Full Spectrum Deterrence doctrine?

[knight11]

However, that is your plan our reaction would be to escalate the situation and make it an all out war.


if our back is against the wall we would rather break the wall then fight the way you would LIKE US to fight.

Janab that was the answer for some other poster @gwaja-e-hind and you are quoting me. Any way you fail to understand my quote. 1. india will try to speedy, strike with cordinated strike with airforce support. 2. to cut straight during the all out war, so when its already all out war already how you declare it.

Could you ellaborate about the back and wall phrase more.

 

[ice_man]

Janab that was the answer for some other poster @gwaja-e-hind and you are quoting me. Any way you fail to understand my quote. 1. india will try to speedy, strike with cordinated strike with airforce support. 2. to cut straight during the all out war, so when its already all out war already how you declare it.

Could you ellaborate about the back and wall phrase more.

SO your first point is more or less "surgical strike" where india would try to attack with airforce support and capture 30-50 kilometers of Pakistani soil.

well i think this myth of surgical strikes was debunked in 2002 and in 2008 where Pakistan made it very clear that any air,sea or land violation of even an inch of our land would be considered an act of all out war.

we would not keep it limited we would strike back and escalate the situation.

so yes surgical strikes are nothing but a very bad wet dream of india. secondly cold start we have NASR inducted for it. as well as THE

Pakistan to Produce A100 MLRS

so stop dreaming and get realistic.

 

[The Deterrent]

watch 9:30 seconds onwards of the military parade. the man that enters with JCSC is an SSG commando carrying a "briefcase"

that pretty much shows who has the final authority.

That briefcase is an expandable Kevlar sheet to protect the VIP in an emergency, as quoted by many members here.

Nobody has seen a publicly displayed nuclear launch authorization device possessed by a Pakistani authority. Besides, anything close to such a device is too big as compared to this briefcase. Furthermore, Pakistani nuclear weapons are never in a state of full readiness during peace-time, so there is no point in carrying a launch-authorization device at all times.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Furthermore, Pakistani nuclear weapons are never in a state of full readiness during peace-time, so there is no point in carrying a launch-authorization device at all times.

Hi deterrent!
I must confess,I find your posts very reasonable (among Pakistani folks) most of the times,
I'd however like to add my points on the readiness of missiles-and that is-
1) with TBMs like nasr coming into picture, don't you think, Pakistan would be forced to keep missile mated with warheads- in alerted state?
2) since there are talks going on to have a sea launched babar,I suspect that (based on my own experience and colleges) in this case too, warheads will be electronically mated like how we've done with k series of SLBMs.
Thirdly I would like to elicit your response on the development of cold launch of babar that will eventually lead to under water launch. What do you think is Pakistan's competence in this field?
How do you think Pakistan overcomes various issues like acoustic instability etc?

 

[The Deterrent]

Hi deterrent!
I must confess,I find your posts very reasonable (among Pakistani folks) most of the times,

Thank you.

I'd however like to add my points on the readiness of missiles-and that is-
1) with TBMs like nasr coming into picture, don't you think, Pakistan would be forced to keep missile mated with warheads- in alerted state?

1) Negative. If you explore the details of our present tactical nuclear delivery systems (Nasr), you can see that it is a scaled-down version of other Pakistani ballistic missiles, in terms of SOPs, Warhead Integration etc. For example, compare Nasr and Ghaznavi side-by-side. The ASFC still needs to:
a. Bring the TEL, Missile motor & Warhead Package together from different locations for BOTH missiles.
b. Integrate the entire system for BOTH missiles.
c. Prep the launch battery into position for BOTH missiles.
d. Wait for multiple Arming Codes for BOTH missiles.
e. After launch, the arming procedures based on fool-proof environmental changes (g values, -ive accelerations, impact switches, radar altimeter readings etc) have to go through smoothly for BOTH missiles.

So there is no need to keep them in alerted state at all times. Only the integration times for Nasr will be reduced because it is a smaller system relatively. Its not like they are kept at hair-trigger alert levels, there are proper protocols and arming procedures in place just like any other system to make sure that there is no accidental detonation. No one, I repeat, NO ONE can launch without proper authorization to arm the system.

2) since there are talks going on to have a sea launched babar,I suspect that (based on my own experience and colleges) in this case too, warheads will be electronically mated like how we've done with k series of SLBMs

Definitely, in that case all that will stand between a nuclear SLCM launch order and the missile itself, will be an authorized launch code from the respective higher command. Although Babur SLCM won't been completely isloted from the crew because it would be physically available as a torpedo tube capsule inside the submarine, rather than sealed away in a VLS (as in case of K-15/K-4), but still it would be preferable to have the missile sealed in the capsule and have it armed via a port or something.
Still, all protocols will be there, and if you've read on Pakistan's nuclear arming procedures, it would be nearly impossible to do so without authorization. Even if the launch order (WITH arming codes) is in hand, it would still take the consent of 2 men at each arming stage to conduct a smooth launch.

Thirdly I would like to elicit your response on the development of cold launch of babar that will eventually lead to under water launch. What do you think is Pakistan's competence in this field?
How do you think Pakistan overcomes various issues like acoustic instability etc?

Babur SLCM won't be launched by a VLS (there isn't any on any of the present/future submarines). So it will be launched via a torpedo tube. Now there is an ambiguity that whether the booster will ignite inside the water or after clearing the water. Both are possible, but I believe that it would be easier (at first) to ignite the booster inside water.

I guess we will have to wait for the test flight for more information.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Babur SLCM won't be launched by a VLS (there isn't any on any of the present/future submarines). So it will be launched via a torpedo tube. Now there is an ambiguity that whether the booster will ignite inside the water or after clearing the water. Both are possible, but I believe that it would be easier (at first) to ignite the booster inside water.

I guess we will have to wait for the test flight for more information.

Hi deterrent.
I see your point,I'm deeply interested in nuclear doctrines of both india and Pakistan and have been watching a lot of seminars lately. For instance- Carnegie melon,christine fair's, khalid kidwai, our SFC commanders etc and one particular event that I as someone pursuing my research in FMC(flight mechanics and control) find very disturbing is the introduction of TBMs to battlefield. Indian position is very clear and that is- it doesn't discriminate better a strategic nuclear attack and a tactical one and the response for both will be massive.
Secondly ,I find it very weird and intriguing that how come Pakistan with such Lower level of both academic and industrial research deals with problems like acoustic instability,combustion instability - because these are the things that Indian c design community regularly faces

 

[The Deterrent]

Hi deterrent.
I see your point,I'm deeply interested in nuclear doctrines of both india and Pakistan and have been watching a lot of seminars lately. For instance- Carnegie melon,christine fair's, khalid kidwai, our SFC commanders etc and one particular event that I as someone pursuing my research in FMC(flight mechanics and control) find very disturbing is the introduction of TBMs to battlefield. Indian position is very clear and that is- it doesn't discriminate better a strategic nuclear attack and a tactical one and the response for both will be massive.

I'm not sure how you think nuclear warfare works. Words written on a piece of paper DON'T matter. Take for example, India's "No First Use" policy. It holds more value in terms of morality and public/international relations rather than practical nuclear exchange. If, God forbid, both countries came close to a nuclear war, India's SFC will actually prefer to launch a pre-emptive strike rather than wait for Pakistan's SFC to blow them to Kingdom Come (which they WILL do if it all came down to it).
Similarly the ever-so-repeated stance of "Massive and Disproportional Response" has little to do with a practical nuclear exchange. Escalatory exchange is always proportional, otherwise you risk the hope of the conflict to resolve at some stage. Just because Pakistan smoked an armored formation settled occupying a bit of Pakistani territory, Indian SFC won't break all hell loose. Because the Pakistani response WILL come after that, and India simple cannot risk its survival. However, taking out the base/missile group/military formation from which the TEL came, is a proportionate response, to which similarly Pakistan won't break all hell loose. Thats how nuclear exchanges would work.

Secondly ,I find it very weird and intriguing that how come Pakistan with such Lower level of both academic and industrial research deals with problems like acoustic instability,combustion instability - because these are the things that Indian c design community regularly faces

Look, amardeep mishra, I respect your adherence to logic and published research work. But please, for the love of God, try to understand how the Pakistani military-industrial complex works. We DON'T care for solving problems for showing it to the world. We care for our specific needs, and problems being solved by hook or by crook. If we can't do something ourselves, we buy the solution from elsewhere and replicate the process in-house. So the next time you wonder how Pakistan made the 3D Carbon-Carbon Reinforced Re-entry Nose Tips for its Shaheen series, just don't think that we actually invented it.
However, there are capable & hardworking scientists and engineers having qualifications from abroad sitting in these organizations and working on advanced systems. They face the same problems, have a lot of (unheard) failures, and eventually overcome them.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Now there is an ambiguity that whether the booster will ignite inside the water or after clearing the water. Both are possible, but I believe that it would be easier (at first) to ignite the booster inside water.

@The Deterrent

Usually there is a separate motor that ignites as soon as the missile leaves the silo-this motor helps clear the missile from water-main motor fires only when the missile has cleared water.The reason why there is an underwater motor is simply because the gas generator in the silo doesnt have enough thrust to propel the missile for 30m underwater.

Take for example, India's "No First Use" policy. It holds more value in terms of morality and public/international relations rather than practical nuclear exchange. If, God forbid, both countries came close to a nuclear war, India's SFC will actually prefer to launch a pre-emptive strike rather than wait for Pakistan's SFC to blow them to Kingdom Come (which they WILL do if it all came down to it).

My friend,I confess,i am not a student of geo politics or nuclear doctrines etc,however i can say with a fairly high degree of certainity based on my
(a) Interaction
(b) Experience
(c) Reading of indian doctrine by prominent members who shaped it in early years
that india sticks to NFUP.it was this entrenched belief in NFUP that even BJP govt decided not to touch it when they came to power with absolute majority in lok sabha.So doubting india's adherence to NFUP is clearly not justified my dear friend! India even in worst case senario- will use nukes only as a counter.Now you would naturally ask- how can i be so sure?Well my answer to that fundamental question is i have access(just like a lot of indians) to some of the very awesome books written on indian nuclear doctrine by some of those who shaped it at one time or another.

Similarly the ever-so-repeated stance of "Massive and Disproportional Response" has little to do with a practical nuclear exchange. Escalatory exchange is always proportional, otherwise you risk the hope of the conflict to resolve at some stage. Just because Pakistan smoked an armored formation settled occupying a bit of Pakistani territory, Indian SFC won't break all hell loose. Because the Pakistani response WILL come after that, and India simple cannot risk its survival. However, taking out the base/missile group/military formation from which the TEL came, is a proportionate response, to which similarly Pakistan won't break all hell loose. Thats how nuclear exchanges would work.

Well i am sure that is the reason why indian govt has invested heavily in ABM program- because they know it pretty well that a full fledged nuclear attack on pakistan would inevitably invite a similar response from pakistan and to blunt that they are working on phase-2 of the program with even better interceptors.Till now more than $2bn have gone into the r&d of ABM program alone and that comprises of extremely long range radars,interceptors etc.I am sure you would acknowledge $2bn isnt a small amount invested in any "one" program.
So when shyam saran says that indian response will be massive against any tactical or strategic nuclear attack then he very well means it!

Look, amardeep mishra, I respect your adherence to logic and published research work. But please, for the love of God, try to understand how the Pakistani military-industrial complex works. We DON'T care for solving problems for showing it to the world. We care for our specific needs, and problems being solved by hook or by crook. If we can't do something ourselves, we buy the solution from elsewhere and replicate the process in-house. So the next time you wonder how Pakistan made the 3D Carbon-Carbon Reinforced Re-entry Nose Tips for its Shaheen series, just don't think that we actually invented it.
However, there are capable & hardworking scientists and engineers having qualifications from abroad sitting in these organizations and working on advanced systems. They face the same problems, have a lot of (unheard) failures, and eventually overcome them.

Well,my friend,let me render you a different angle to this whole design affair-
lets say you decide to design a new rocket(or for that matter any defence system) one day- what would you essentially require?You would require-
1)propellant
2)the casing-interestingly the thickness of casing or missile body is directly contingent upon the chamber pressure and amount of propellants
3)some sort of guidance and control.
Now also suppose the local industry in your country isnt really matured enough to supply any of the 3,then what would you do?You would try to get some of the components from foreign vendors right?But buying has it's limitations!
In pakistans case-lets imagine for a second that china transfered the process by which they create HTPB+AP for their IRBMs to pakistan and pakistan started producing the high energy materials for missiles.
lets also assume that maraging steel required for the missile structure too was obtained from generous uncle wang(or they might have set up a complete plant to manufacture maraging steel for missiles).Lets also assume that control and guidance systems- notably the sensors and actuators too came from china(because the manufacturing of sensors require FABs and is inherently a costly affair).
Everything is working absolutely fine and pakistan has a deterrence against arch enemy india. But india just tested their A-5 and K-4 and are working on A-6 and K-5- now that is a big worry for folks at GHQ PINDI!So they decided to have a similar weapon in their arsenal too!
Now how would you deal with such a scenario?
Because to design a better system you would need RESEARCH at your home country.For instance lets say you wish to replace the truss structure with shroud and external control surfaces with TVC and RCS in order to enable it to fit inside a canister. Now what will be the choice of your TVC and RCS?because TVC provides pitch and yaw corrections and RCS your roll corrections.believe me designing RCS is a pain in the *** job especially for under water strategic missiles- for their is strict limitation on the kind of materials you are allowed to use and their location! It would come to you as a surprise that soviets tried titanium alloys in their RCS of various SLBMs like R-29s etc and failed- they eventually settled with maraging steel and PC steel etc.
Now coming to most important part- composites- without a proper research background in metallurgy and material sciences it will be impossible to find a substitute for maraging steel in missiles because the composite need to be able to bear both temperature and chamber pressure and you would know that in strategic missiles with diameter close to ~2m the radial stresses are way too strong. How would pakistan deal with these situations!
oh and btw i have a question- and that is where do they perform wind tunnel tests of pakistani strategic missiles for
(1) assessing wind flow profile
(2) assessing the stability of missile via assessing the Cx,Cy,Cz coefficients?
How do they mimic the conditions of re-entry?Do they have a plasma wind tunnel lab?

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent

Usually there is a separate motor that ignites as soon as the missile leaves the silo-this motor helps clear the missile from water-main motor fires only when the missile has cleared water.The reason why there is an underwater motor is simply because the gas generator in the silo doesnt have enough thrust to propel the missile for 30m underwater.

Perhaps you didn't read my reply. Babur SLCM is NOT a ballistic missile, won't be based in a silo/VLS. The most likely configuration of 520mm Babur is to be encapsulated in a 533mm tube to be launched HORIZONTALLY via the torpedo tube. The capsule would clear the tube conventionally, and afterwards the booster will ignite either inside or outside the water to begin boost-phase.
The configuration you describe is for a SLBM.

My friend,I confess,i am not a student of geo politics or nuclear doctrines etc,however i can say with a fairly high degree of certainity based on my
(a) Interaction
(b) Experience
(c) Reading of indian doctrine by prominent members who shaped it in early years
that india sticks to NFUP.it was this entrenched belief in NFUP that even BJP govt decided not to touch it when they came to power with absolute majority in lok sabha.So doubting india's adherence to NFUP is clearly not justified my dear friend! India even in worst case senario- will use nukes only as a counter.Now you would naturally ask- how can i be so sure?Well my answer to that fundamental question is i have access(just like a lot of indians) to some of the very awesome books written on indian nuclear doctrine by some of those who shaped it at one time or another.

You didn't get the meaning of what I said, it seems. I agree that the NFU doctrine exists formally, and is stated to be followed. But it is just a policy, one that can be changed easily. I doubt it because I believe that if the Indian Military (during a conflict) realized that it can decapitate Pakistan's nuclear capability by both conventional and nuclear means, it will get the authorization from the NCA to do so before Pakistan is pushed beyond its limits. Not doing so will be same as shooting in the foot.

Well i am sure that is the reason why indian govt has invested heavily in ABM program- because they know it pretty well that a full fledged nuclear attack on pakistan would inevitably invite a similar response from pakistan and to blunt that they are working on phase-2 of the program with even better interceptors.Till now more than $2bn have gone into the r&d of ABM program alone and that comprises of extremely long range radars,interceptors etc.I am sure you would acknowledge $2bn isnt a small amount invested in any "one" program.
So when shyam saran says that indian response will be massive against any tactical or strategic nuclear attack then he very well means it!

If you believe that any in-service/planned Ballistic Missile Defense System can take on an authorized, massive launch by a country's Strategic Forces, you are sadly mistaken. You should get more information on how easy (relatively) is to overcome BMDs, I have nothing more to say.

Well,my friend,let me render you a different angle to this whole design affair-
lets say you decide to design a new rocket(or for that matter any defence system) one day- what would you essentially require?You would require-
1)propellant
2)the casing-interestingly the thickness of casing or missile body is directly contingent upon the chamber pressure and amount of propellants
3)some sort of guidance and control.
Now also suppose the local industry in your country isnt really matured enough to supply any of the 3,then what would you do?You would try to get some of the components from foreign vendors right?But buying has it's limitations!
In pakistans case-lets imagine for a second that china transfered the process by which they create HTPB+AP for their IRBMs to pakistan and pakistan started producing the high energy materials for missiles.
lets also assume that maraging steel required for the missile structure too was obtained from generous uncle wang(or they might have set up a complete plant to manufacture maraging steel for missiles).Lets also assume that control and guidance systems- notably the sensors and actuators too came from china(because the manufacturing of sensors require FABs and is inherently a costly affair).
Everything is working absolutely fine and pakistan has a deterrence against arch enemy india. But india just tested their A-5 and K-4 and are working on A-6 and K-5- now that is a big worry for folks at GHQ PINDI!So they decided to have a similar weapon in their arsenal too!
Now how would you deal with such a scenario?
Because to design a better system you would need RESEARCH at your home country.For instance lets say you wish to replace the truss structure with shroud and external control surfaces with TVC and RCS in order to enable it to fit inside a canister. Now what will be the choice of your TVC and RCS?because TVC provides pitch and yaw corrections and RCS your roll corrections.believe me designing RCS is a pain in the *** job especially for under water strategic missiles- for their is strict limitation on the kind of materials you are allowed to use and their location! It would come to you as a surprise that soviets tried titanium alloys in their RCS of various SLBMs like R-29s etc and failed- they eventually settled with maraging steel and PC steel etc.
Now coming to most important part- composites- without a proper research background in metallurgy and material sciences it will be impossible to find a substitute for maraging steel in missiles because the composite need to be able to bear both temperature and chamber pressure and you would know that in strategic missiles with diameter close to ~2m the radial stresses are way too strong. How would pakistan deal with these situations!
oh and btw i have a question- and that is where do they perform wind tunnel tests of pakistani strategic missiles for
(1) assessing wind flow profile
(2) assessing the stability of missile via assessing the Cx,Cy,Cz coefficients?
How do they mimic the conditions of re-entry?Do they have a plasma wind tunnel lab?

1. GHQ is not at all worried about A-5/6, K-4/5. The moment India introduced A-2, it was understood that a strike from mainland India cannot be prevented anymore.

2. They don't decide to have the same weapons as India, they decide for their own needs. Cases in point: Babur, Ra'ad, Nasr, MIRVed system (in development) --- all based on Pakistan's needs, with no comparable systems in India before their conception. That is why Pakistan stopped expanding the range of its systems and decided to increase the variety of delivery systems instead.

3. Pakistan is nearly a decade away from introducing an SLBM and doesn't have any SSBN in construction. So only time will tell how they will cope with those problems. In short, there probably isn't any plan to make one in the first place.

oh and btw i have a question- and that is where do they perform wind tunnel tests of pakistani strategic missiles for
(1) assessing wind flow profile
(2) assessing the stability of missile via assessing the Cx,Cy,Cz coefficients?
How do they mimic the conditions of re-entry?Do they have a plasma wind tunnel lab?

"Somewhere, Somehow". That is the beauty of it, you don't get to know the details. If Pakistan started revealing everything publicly (like DRDO), do you think we would have what we have now? So please, stop asking the questions which don't have any answers available in the public domain.
Of course you are free to deny the whole existence of our credible deterrence, as no "proofs" or "research papers" are available.

 

[amardeep mishra]

But it is just a policy, one that can be changed easily. I doubt it because I believe that if the Indian Military (during a conflict) realized that it can decapitate Pakistan's nuclear capability by both conventional and nuclear means, it will get the authorization from the NCA to do so before Pakistan is pushed beyond its limits. Not doing so will be same as shooting in the foot.

@The Deterrent
Lets agree to disagree then,your statement clearly means that indian NFUP is nothing more than an academic exercise on papers and has no value?If india really did not believe in NFUP then i am sure they wouldnt have invested so heavily in second strike capability and ABMs. NFUP is the very essence of indian nuclear doctrine- i urge you to go through a couple of seminar lectures delivered by
(1) ex SFC commander vice adm vijay shankar-

2)Shyam saran- go through the whole series- 7 lectures

Of course you are free to deny the whole existence of our credible deterrence, as no "proofs" or "research papers" are available.

My dear friend,i do not wish to sound derogatory ,but this very lack of research papers in a country whose research and patent output itself is so abysmally low casts some very serious doubts on the "way" things(research) takes place.
I mean would you believe if i said we have cryogenic engine more powerful than the one NASA's JPL has?obviously not right?you would go by "published literature" or "revealed tests" to come to the conclusion if my statement is indeed true or not right? I mean,look,i understand what you mean by "somehow" but that "somehow" or helping hand has itz own limits!

if you believe that any in-service/planned Ballistic Missile Defense System can take on an authorized, massive launch by a country's Strategic Forces, you are sadly mistaken. You should get more information on how easy (relatively) is to overcome BMDs, I have nothing more to say.

@The Deterrent
There is a very huge book on the topic of engagements based on probability written by an american naval engineer back in 80s that i would suggest you- i had it in my system till a couple of weeks back when i formated my system.It deals with various engagement scenarios and engagement of ICBMs with interceptors is one such he deals with. Interception is always a probabilistic event(that depends a lot on various parameters like manouvring warhead,missile seekers,end game propulsion dynamics etc) - what i wanted to say when i wrote "blunting" the pakistani response was- lets say if pakistan fired 100 missiles then at least 80%(i am quoting a very conservative figure of 80%,i would however like to highlight that DRDO's figure is close to 98% in simulated engagements when they intercepted prithvi series of liquid fueled missile "mimicing" pakistan's older liquid fueled missiles with "two" interceptors) of them would be intercepted hence the net effect is now reduced to just 20 missiles

MIRVed system (in development) --- all based on Pakistan's needs, with no comparable systems in India before their conception. That is why Pakistan stopped expanding the range of its systems and decided to increase the variety of delivery systems instead.

Fair enough,i see,however i would quickly claim that indian efforts to MIRV their strategic missiles started way earlier than you might think- just my personal experience.Yeah but rest others started after pakistan got the respective systems.

 

[v9s]

My dear friend,i do not wish to sound derogatory ,but this very lack of research papers in a country whose research and patent output itself is so abysmally low casts some very serious doubts on the "way" things(research) takes place.
I mean would you believe if i said we have cryogenic engine more powerful than the one NASA's JPL has?obviously not right?you would go by "published literature" or "revealed tests" to come to the conclusion if my statement is indeed true or not right? I mean,look,i understand what you mean by "somehow" but that "somehow" or helping hand has itz own limits!

You said something similar to me before, so humor me and tell me if the corporations building defence equipment for the US publish technical papers too. Not stuff currently in use, but stuff that is completely new like the rail gun, etc.

 

[Donald Trump]

excellent ellaboration for new comers in defence.pk

Really?

That idiot who wrote this nonsensical article needs to see a psychiatrist. This floosie wants to start with a nuclear war at the outset! How dumb can people get? This clown seems to be intellectually bankrupt as he hasn't a clue what the heck he's talking about!

And employment of battlefield nukes are passe because it would lead to total nuclear annihilation and that means millions of casualties and total destruction of Pakistan.

Bottom line: Nukes will never be used. They are a deterrent at best. If the author had understood the dynamics of geopolitics and international relations he wouldn't have produced this trash.

 

[amardeep mishra]

You said something similar to me before, so humor me and tell me if the corporations building defence equipment for the US publish technical papers too. Not stuff currently in use, but stuff that is completely new like the rail gun, etc.

Yeah corporations do file patents for instance search for things like aerospike,under water missile ejection system to name a few.I'm sure Google will tell you better

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent
Lets agree to disagree then,your statement clearly means that indian NFUP is nothing more than an academic exercise on papers and has no value?If india really did not believe in NFUP then i am sure they wouldnt have invested so heavily in second strike capability and ABMs. NFUP is the very essence of indian nuclear doctrine- i urge you to go through a couple of seminar lectures delivered by
(1) ex SFC commander vice adm vijay shankar-

2)Shyam saran- go through the whole series- 7 lectures

US, Russia, China don't have any NFUP, but still invest in second-strike capability and ABMs. So this argument is not related at all.
I excuse as these videos were too long, I'll watch them when I'm free.

My dear friend,i do not wish to sound derogatory ,but this very lack of research papers in a country whose research and patent output itself is so abysmally low casts some very serious doubts on the "way" things(research) takes place.
I mean would you believe if i said we have cryogenic engine more powerful than the one NASA's JPL has?obviously not right?you would go by "published literature" or "revealed tests" to come to the conclusion if my statement is indeed true or not right? I mean,look,i understand what you mean by "somehow" but that "somehow" or helping hand has itz own limits!]

Doubts about the "way" things take place is YOUR problem, not ours. We just care about the "things". As I said, don't believe in our claims if you don't want to, nobody is forcing you.

@The Deterrent
There is a very huge book on the topic of engagements based on probability written by an american naval engineer back in 80s that i would suggest you- i had it in my system till a couple of weeks back when i formated my system.It deals with various engagement scenarios and engagement of ICBMs with interceptors is one such he deals with. Interception is always a probabilistic event(that depends a lot on various parameters like manouvring warhead,missile seekers,end game propulsion dynamics etc) - what i wanted to say when i wrote "blunting" the pakistani response was- lets say if pakistan fired 100 missiles then at least 80%(i am quoting a very conservative figure of 80%,i would however like to highlight that DRDO's figure is close to 98% in simulated engagements when they intercepted prithvi series of liquid fueled missile "mimicing" pakistan's older liquid fueled missiles with "two" interceptors) of them would be intercepted hence the net effect is now reduced to just 20 missiles

Fortunately, the 80s were 30 years ago, technology has advanced since then. And before considering books by USN Engineers, keep in mind that they were focused on ICBM exchanges between US and USSR, each having tons of early warning times.

You consider yourself a research scholar, right? Yet you go strictly by the numbers, forgetting that those percentages are for a singular environment and engagement scenario. I suggest you go through this basic thread about how else can Pakistan overcome BMD, before going into rigorous mathematics of engagement probabilities.
How can Pakistan counter India’s ABM system?

Besides, a Prithvi "mimicking" a Ghauri's warhead? Please give me a break, have you looked at the sheer size of a Prithvi as a target? When DRDO shoots down an Agni series (I/II) warhead, then their claims will have some credibility.

Fair enough,i see,however i would quickly claim that indian efforts to MIRV their strategic missiles started way earlier than you might think- just my personal experience.Yeah but rest others started after pakistan got the respective systems.

I never claimed that Indian MIRV effort was a response to Pakistan's. However Pakistan's MIRV effort is a response to the BMD.

 

[amardeep mishra]

China don't have any NFUP

China does have a NFUP my dear friend

You consider yourself a research scholar, right? Yet you go strictly by the numbers, forgetting that those percentages are for a singular environment and engagement scenario. I suggest you go through this basic thread about how else can Pakistan overcome BMD, before going into rigorous mathematics of engagement probabilities.

Yes I'm a research scholar,IIT madras,and I know under what circumstances they get the figure of 98%,and that's why I also mentioned- prithvi was used to mimic Pakistan's older liquid fueled missile- at least in trajectory.and hence the probability of interception against Pakistani solid fueled IRBMs would be less.That is precisely the reason DRDL is working on phase 2 with enhanced interceptors that will take care of solid fueled ICBMs launched from over 5000kms away.For that DRDO has erected very long range radars viz the sword fish(Indian version of green pine) with very high pulse repetition frequency to track very fast moving target(~10s of mach). Space based assets are being worked upon to detect launch of ICBMs-because early warning is the key. Secondly newer higher energy material with higher ISP are being used in exo and indo interceptors under phase 2. The exo interceptor has IIR seeker instead of an active radar seeker because IIR seeker can very easily discriminate between a warhead and other decoys(thanks to image correlation) which a radar seeker can't!

Doubts about the "way" things take place is YOUR problem, not ours. We just care about the "things". As I said, don't believe in our claims if you don't want to, nobody is forcing you.

Tell me very frankly, have you ever had the opportunity of either visiting or talking to Pakistani equivalent of DRDL/ASL/RCI(missile design and development labs)? You'd get the answers