Why going ' MAD ' won't work for India ?

[SrNair]

You seem to be retarded

Pakistan is a Functioning state, not a failed state idiot. With the amount of resources Pakistan has it could emerge as a major economy with a little planning. Pakistans economic situation has slowed down military procurement but has not ended it and with an improving economy will pick up again to ensure India can be targeted
Pakistan is heading towards 200 nuclear warheads and will not stop, most likely going beyond the 300 war head mark, Pakistan has continued on both increasing its war heads and number of missiles concentrating on missiles that it thinks will be most required in a war situation.
Shields against incoming missiles are very very unreliable especially against numerous incoming missiles at the same time
Even if you get 50% of the incoming missiles (that’s very doubtfull) you will be hit by 150 nuclear war heads and you think India will survive that, that’s mental.
The consequences for the planet let alone India would be dire if anything about 20 nuclear warheads went off at the same time let alone 100+. This is the reason Pakistan continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan knows it needs more then 100 warheads to destroy india hence is building them to ensure India’s complete annihilation
In todays world, military advantage is not enough. Pakistan is a powerfull state with a strong military able to hurt india bad, very bad, with everything from cruise missiles to drones. In any situation where either Pakistans state is threatened or red lines crossed it would not hesitate to unleash its full arsenal against india.
Keep repeating 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india,
Then wake up to the reality that the world, let alone india may not survive such a attack

India can survive a nuclear attack by Pakistan even if it cost too much damage to us.But we dont interested in a war like that.
You have too much confidence about your missiles.That is your first mistake.
Once you mobilize this much nuke warhead .we can see it through our sats.Then you can see pinpoint strike of k-15 from Arihant SSBN.That is enough for your adventure.

 

[Dillinger]

I have lost all respect for you due to your intellectual dishonesty .
Do you even understand that you have been contradicting yourself in last several posts ...?

There is no contradiction here at all.

It seems that you assumed that I stated that our retaliation to a first strike would be limited surgical strikes- reread what I wrote- "Let me add my own opinion though, I'd call their bluff and conduct strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan held Kashmir, only on the camps, with standoff munitions and covert raids, without attempting to breach their ADGE in any substantial manner. Good odds that the Pakistani executive and uniforms will not risk mutual destruction for the sake of jihadis. But then I like my odds, our executive might not."

The bluff here refers to some largely held beliefs that any strike on terror camps will lead to a nuclear attack. I am talking about calling them OUT on that bluff.

That's the first point. Those surgical strikes are not meant as a retaliation to a first strike.

ANY nuclear attack, even a single TNW in Thar will result in massive retaliation even under our current (unfortunately) amorphous doctrine.

Lets clear the above up first.

 

[The Deterrent]

I didn't say that Pakistan has no " first Strike Capability ? ..I said Pakistan has no ' credible ' first strike capability

Aren't these two things different ?

First strike capability must involve ability to overwhelmingly disarm enemy .
If Pakistan initiates first strike against India and is unable to overwhelm India .
Then India with her robust second strike capability will virtually destroy whole of Pakistan .

For Pakistan's First strike capability is to be credible it must be able to annihilate India fully ...otherwise Pakistan will wiped out from face of world map .
In absence of long range missile that can cover whole of India and large enough arsenal of nukes, Pakistan's first strike capability will remain questionable ...

You are correct indeed, thanks for clarification.

Ah,explain ?

Well it was a bit of an assumption, based on the digging I do on GE. Since I don't have any solid data to prove those points, I take it back.

Unless China lends you new missiles ( which it won't because it will be violating MTCR ) ...it will take years for you guys to have capability to envelope whole of India ...

And you are absolutely sure about that?

As far as plans of deploying nuclear weapons on conventional subs is concerned, there were rumors of Pakistan acquiring CJ-10 missiles with qing class submarines, proved to be utter nonsense.

Now there are rumors floating of Pakistan planning to acquire much smaller S20 submarines, which are unlikely to deploy any nuclear weapons.

Babur SLCM can be deployed on the existing Agostas, as it uses standard 533mm torpedo tubes. A larger platform will merely allow for larger number of weapons.

Pakistan Army has other missiles with a ranges > 1000 KM , Ghauri series with 1200KM and 1800 KM ranges for first and second version , enough to take the distant and far flung areas out .

Just needed to point out something, there isn't any extended range version of Ghauri (or Ghauri-II) in service.

 

[Indo-guy]

There is no contradiction here at all.

It seems that you assumed that I stated that our retaliation to a first strike would be limited surgical strikes- reread what I wrote- "Let me add my own opinion though, I'd call their bluff and conduct strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan held Kashmir, only on the camps, with standoff munitions and covert raids, without attempting to breach their ADGE in any substantial manner. Good odds that the Pakistani executive and uniforms will not risk mutual destruction for the sake of jihadis. But then I like my odds, our executive might not."

The bluff here refers to some largely held beliefs that any strike on terror camps will lead to a nuclear attack. I am talking about calling them OUT on that bluff.

That's the first point. Those surgical strikes are not meant as a retaliation to a first strike.

ANY nuclear attack, even a single TNW in Thar will result in massive retaliation even under our current (unfortunately) amorphous doctrine.

Lets clear the above up first.

You are too vain to accept your mistakes . It takes magnanimous heart to accept ones blunders .

The other members who will read your posts and my posts will be able to make distinction ..as to who is lying and for what .

In order to get rid of your ludicrous statements ... you are trying to add masala of surgical strikes , nuclear winnability and what not ....

Your lack of honesty has become pretty evident to me in last several posts .


I have shown how your posts contradict each other ...and still you have audacity to deny same ...

 

[Dillinger]

There is no contradiction here at all.

It seems that you assumed that I stated that our retaliation to a first strike would be limited surgical strikes- reread what I wrote- "Let me add my own opinion though, I'd call their bluff and conduct strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan held Kashmir, only on the camps, with standoff munitions and covert raids, without attempting to breach their ADGE in any substantial manner. Good odds that the Pakistani executive and uniforms will not risk mutual destruction for the sake of jihadis. But then I like my odds, our executive might not."

The bluff here refers to some largely held beliefs that any strike on terror camps will lead to a nuclear attack. I am talking about calling them OUT on that bluff.

That's the first point. Those surgical strikes are not meant as a retaliation to a first strike.

ANY nuclear attack, even a single TNW in Thar will result in massive retaliation even under our current (unfortunately) amorphous doctrine.

Lets clear the above up first.

In addition to the above @Indo-guy

Ensuring MAD does not lead to a victory in a nuclear war.

So making the following statements-

1) No one can win a nuclear war.

2) We must ensure MAD.

IS NOT CONTRADICTORY. MAD IS ENSURED NOT TO WIN NUCLEAR WARS BUT TO PREVENT THEM (THAT IS WHY ITS CALLED NUCLEAR DETERRENCE).

 

[Indo-guy]

And you are absolutely sure about that?.

I conded the point that Pakistan does have capability to envelope virtually whole of India .

But yet it does not constitute credible first strike capability .

However you must understand while Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and missile inventory in only India specific. India has to maintain nuclear and missile stock to counter both Pakistan and China ...and therefore it will be necessarily be bigger than Pakistan's inventory at any point if time .

and in no way Pakistan will ever be able to take out all of that .

It's simply impossible .

Pakistan can never win nuclear war against India .

why start the nuclear war if it can't win , in fact one in which it will be completely eliminated ???


I am just advocating a strong case for Pakistan whereby avoiding such war is so crucial for its existence .

 

[Dillinger]

You are too vain to accept your mistakes . It takes magnanimous heart to accept ones blunders .

The other members who will read your posts and my posts will be able to make distinction ..as to who is lying and for what .

In order to get rid of your ludicrous statements ... you are trying to add masala of surgical strikes , nuclear winnability and what not ....

Your lack of honesty has become pretty evident to me in last several posts .


I have shown how your posts contradict each other ...and still you have audacity to deny same ...

There is no lack of honesty here whatsoever.

You've made two assumptions-

That somehow ensuring MAD and not being able to win a nuclear war are contradictory. Which it clearly is not. MAD is ensured to AVOID nuclear wars, NOT to win them. THAT'S THE VERY DEFINITION OF MAD.

Secondly you've assumed that I stated that our response to a first strike would be surgical strikes, you didn't even read the post properly, I stated quite clearly that we can risk surgical strikes and that Pakistan is not mad enough to engage in a first strike because of that.

How does the above even remotely fall in the realm of dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise?

@Indo-guy Furthermore, appoint any three senior members of your choice of whichever nationality- request them to go though the posts from page 9 onward and provide a verdict as to whether I have contradicted myself at all. Coincidentally, what exactly do you think MAD actually means beyond the simple expansion of the acronym?

 

[Indo-guy]

There is no lack of honesty here whatsoever.

You've made two assumptions-

That somehow ensuring MAD and not being able to win a nuclear war are contradictory. Which it clearly is not. MAD is ensured to AVOID nuclear wars, NOT to win them. THAT'S THE VERY DEFINITION OF MAD.

Secondly you've assumed that I stated that our response to a first strike would be surgical strikes, you didn't even read the post properly, I stated quite clearly that we can risk surgical strikes and that Pakistan is not mad enough to engage in a first strike because of that.

How does the above even remotely fall in the realm of dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise?

@Indo-guy Furthermore, appoint any three senior members of your choice of whichever nationality- request them to go though the posts from page 9 onward and provide a verdict as to whether I have contradicted myself at all. Coincidentally, what exactly do you think MAD actually means beyond the simple expansion of the acronym?

Before you even begin to ask me questions ...you have not answered my question which I asked long time back .

When you said , " We do not have to go nuclear against Pakistan to resolve our security concerns ? "

why did you make such statement anyways ...when no Indian member had even remotely suggested anything like that .

I consider a statement such as this absolutely irresponsible for senior member like you .

By making such statement you implied that at least some Indian members think that indeed nuclear war will bring resolution to India's security concern by removing Pakistan forever ....

It was absolutely uncalled for .

either you answer my question or retract your statement !!!

I am not here for any online trial ....forum is open for all to see and decide .


I have already posted how self contradictory statements you made ....

I will post some of them again for your ready reference ....


at one time you say that surviving nuclear war is no victory ..it's pyrrhic victory
and India we know will die ....and at another point you feel surviving nuclear war is a victory
and next very moment you are saying we do not have to win nuclear war ???
and then you say we need to ensure MAD

 

[RAMPAGE]

I condede the point that Pakistan does have capability to envelope virtually whole of India .

But yet it does not constitute credible first strike capability .

Your assumption that India will survive the first strike, is exactly based on what ???

 

[Indo-guy]

Your assumption that India will survive the first strike, is exactly based on what ???

Your assumption that India will survive the first strike, is exactly based on what ???

Besides that Indian government had carried out assessment with simulation with worst case scenario ...in Indo-Pak Nuclear war.

the outcome of this simulated assessment was that India will survive nuclear war although with huge cost ...it's economy having been driven atleast by a decade .

 

[SQ8]

The problem here is simple. We have three viewpoints that WILL not converge.

One viewpoint insists that in a nuclear conflict, Pakistan will be wipe out and India will survive any attack to live another day.
It basis its conclusion apparently on India's much publicized program(with in depth details) and what not and the rather crude and sparse information available on Pakistan's.

One viewpoint insists that YES Pakistan will cease to exist, but the Pakistani strike will also deal a blow that will make the "life" that India lives quite difficult to continue normally.
This information is based on knowing India's much celebrated capabilities AND having worked within the very industry and "sphere" of firms and organizations that are behind Pakistan's capability.

These viewpoints will NEVER converge out of both the information available to each, and quite simply a matter of personal prestige for some. So its better to agree to disagree and not shove a viewpoint down the others throat by parroting the same thing again and again without bringing anything new to the table.

@Dillinger @Indo-guy

 

[Indo-guy]

Your assumption that India will survive the first strike, is exactly based on what ???

and by asserting so I am no way advocating nuclear war with Pakistan.

all I am saying Pakistan has much at stake in such war ...as it can never win such war it is likely lose its existence .

all the more reasons why Pakistan should desist from using nuclear weapons against India .

 

[SQ8]

Besides that Indian government had carried out assessment with simulation with worst case scenario ...in Indo-Pak Nuclear war.

the outcome of this simulated assessment was that India will survive nuclear war although with huge cost ...it's economy having been driven atleast by a decade .

I find it rather intellecturaly dishonest that you basing your assumption on Pakistani evaluation on the rather vague interview of AM Asghar Khan who(regardless of his esteem and reputation) has been disconnected from Defence matter in terms of detailed knowledge since he left the Air Force and joined politics. His evaluation is based on his remaining contacts with the PAF. Not with the SPD.

 

[Indo-guy]

The problem here is simple. We have three viewpoints that WILL not converge.

One viewpoint insists that in a nuclear conflict, Pakistan will be wipe out and India will survive any attack to live another day.
It basis its conclusion apparently on India's much publicized program(with in depth details) and what not and the rather crude and sparse information available on Pakistan's.

One viewpoint insists that YES Pakistan will cease to exist, but the Pakistani strike will also deal a blow that will make the "life" that India lives quite difficult to continue normally.
This information is based on knowing India's much celebrated capabilities AND having worked within the very industry and "sphere" of firms and organizations that are behind Pakistan's capability.

These viewpoints will NEVER converge out of both the information available to each, and quite simply a matter of personal prestige for some. So its better to agree to disagree and not shove a viewpoint down the others throat by parroting the same thing again and again without bringing anything new to the table.

@Dillinger @Indo-guy

when Ex Air Chief Marshal of Pakistan says that Pakistan will be wiped out in nuclear war but India will survive ?

what must be reasons behind such statement ???

 

[Dillinger]

Before you even begin to ask me questions ...you have not answered my question which I asked long time back .

When you said , " We do not have to go nuclear against Pakistan to resolve our security concerns ? "

why did you make such statement anyways ...when no Indian member had even remotely suggested anything like that .

I consider a statement such as this absolutely irresponsible for senior member like you .

By making such statement you implied that at least some Indian members think that indeed nuclear war will bring resolution to India's security concern by removing Pakistan forever ....

It was absolutely uncalled for .

either you answer my question or retract your statement !!!

I am not here for any online trial ....forum is open for all to see and decide .


I have already posted how self contradictory statements you made ....

I will post some of them again for your ready reference ....

I already gave you the answer, in thread after thread Indian posters have repeatedly assumed that we cannot conduct surgical strikes in Pakistan occupied Kashmir unless we become "strong" enough to come out of a nuclear war intact. As far as I am concerned this is a flawed assertion, we can conduct surgical strikes within the nuclear threshold without even entering a nuclear exchange. Is that clear enough? It is not an uncalled for statement, it is a simple clarification that what we have now, is enough if used properly to fix our security concerns (terror camps in PHK).

1) at one time you say that surviving nuclear war is no victory ..it's pyrrhic victory
2) and India we know will die ....and at another point you feel surviving nuclear war is a victory
3) and next very moment you are saying we do not have to win nuclear war ???
4) and then you say we need to ensure MAD

1) Secondly, the people of India surviving a nuclear war (which is what I stated, that a large number of the people will survive) while the state and its institutions die is a pyrrhic victory. Which is what will happen in a nuclear exchange.

2) IF by some miracle we could insure the survival of the state, that is the Republic of India and NOT just a segment of its populace, then yes we will have survived to be victors. This unfortunately though is NOT possible short of some miracle.

3) Since the state will not survive (you think the IA or the IAF will come out combat capable after such an exchange, we would be open to aggression from flipping Bangladesh at that point leave alone the PRC, do you think the SC will be holding hearings or the PDS still functioning, how much of our irrigation bound water will even be not radioactive) but rather ONLY a segment of its populace will survive thus we CANNOT "WIN" a nuclear war.

4) While we cannot win a nuclear war (read above), we can ensure MAD, which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINNING, MAD HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WINNING! WHO WOULD EVEN CONSIDER SUCH A THING? MAD states unequivocally that we will BOTH destroy each other, not that if you use nukes so will we and then we'll win. ITS DETERRENCE, THE WHOLE POINT OF DETERRENCE IS TO AVOID NUCLEAR WAR BY ENSURING MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. Point 3) and 4) are NOT contradictory. As I said, request senior members to read the two points and provide a verdict.

In fact the above is exactly what me, @Oscar and @Secur have been stating.