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

[NKVD]

That is true, but only in the context of the Cold War. USA/USSR had to target each other's missile silos, hundreds of them.
No, since a first strike is meant to take out the adversary's nuclear weapons, the warheads don't need to cover large area...rather accurate strikes on key storage sites, even with low yields can do the job.

Sorry to say but low yeild can only creeple in few extent and can be recovered slowly Eg: Japan .secondly the In-pak senario is different of what cold war because of the Limited stockpile of Nukes and operational Missiles.So the First strike should be Hard and So Destructive that other cannot Stand on there feet Again.

 

[The Deterrent]

Sorry to say but low yeild can only creeple in few extent and can be recovered slowly Eg: Japan .secondly the In-pak senario is different of what cold war because of the Limited stockpile of Nukes and operational Missiles.So the First strike should be Hard and So Destructive that other cannot Stand on there feet Again.

What you are referring to is total annihilation, of both counter-force and counter-value targets. In this context, First Strike is meant to be against the adversary's nuclear weapons only.
Pre-emptive nuclear strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MilSpec]

That is true, but only in the context of the Cold War. USA/USSR had to target each other's missile silos, hundreds of them.
No, since a first strike is meant to take out the adversary's nuclear weapons, the warheads don't need to cover large area...rather accurate strikes on key storage sites, even with low yields can do the job.

Is this aheseeba?

 

[NKVD]

What you are referring to is total annihilation, of both counter-force and counter-value targets. In this context, First Strike is meant to be against the adversary's nuclear weapons only.
Pre-emptive nuclear strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that but primitive attack cannot be count in Case of India -pak Sorry it will be Total Annailation as Hatred is Reached to far Between these two nations they are not Mature like Us and USSR if they were you might seen the Agreement Like START.

 

[The Deterrent]

Is this aheseeba?

Yeah, see the signature.

I know that but primitive attack cannot be count in Case of India -pak Sorry it will be Total Annailation as Hatred is Reached to far Between these two nations they are not Mature like Us and USSR if they were you might seen the Agreement Like START.

Oh God. I'm out of this discussion.

 

[NKVD]

Yeah, see the signature.

Oh God. I'm out of this discussion.

WHY because I don't agree with you primitive attack is not possible for the Country like pak with today's Satellite and Radars Surveillance eg It's impossible for pakistan to do such act without Alerting.if some how they could india posses very potent second strike Capability my earlier post was for other options rather than primitive strikes

 

[The Deterrent]

WHY because I don't agree with you primitive attack is not possible for the Country like pak with today's Satellite and Radars Surveillance eg It's impossible for pakistan to do such act without Alerting.if some how they could india posses very potent second strike Capability my earlier post was for other options rather than primitive strikes

Now you are making sense. Its true that round-the-clock awareness of the adversary's nuclear arsenal is required prior to conducting a first strike, but in India's case, things are a little different.
First, the majority of the Indian nuclear arsenal is composed of the Air-arm. Second, India has established quite fewer deeply buried missile storage sites. Third, although road-mobile TELs have been developed for the missiles, majority of them are rail-based. Combined with the knowledge obtained by HUMINT, these facts can be taken advantage to conduct a first strike that takes out half of the Indian nuclear arsenal and command and control structure. Now, by no means it is a successful first strike, but it may cripple the Indian SFC to a great extent.

The second-strike capability (SLCM-based) is not yet operational.

P.S. Primitive and Pre-emptive are two different things.

 

[Indo-guy]

WoW, those are some amazing remarks. Tell me, how would you describe a "First Strike Capability?"

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 ...

Now you are making sense. Its true that round-the-clock awareness of the adversary's nuclear arsenal is required prior to conducting a first strike, but in India's case, things are a little different.
First, the majority of the Indian nuclear arsenal is composed of the Air-arm. Second, India has established quite fewer deeply buried missile storage sites. Third, although road-mobile TELs have been developed for the missiles, majority of them are rail-based. Combined with the knowledge obtained by HUMINT, these facts can be taken advantage to conduct a first strike that takes out half of the Indian nuclear arsenal and command and control structure. Now, by no means it is a successful first strike, but it may cripple the Indian SFC to a great extent.

The second-strike capability (SLCM-based) is not yet operational.

P.S. Primitive and Pre-emptive are two different things.

Sea based second strike capability is in evolution. Induction of K17 is imminent .

India also recently tested K4 .... sea based strike capability has some time to establish .

we are on right track.

You agree that at least half of India's nukes will survive ...which will be enough to destroy Pakistan .

Even if crippled India will retain power to nuke Pakistan to stone age .

 

[gslv mk3]

First, the majority of the Indian nuclear arsenal is composed of the Air-arm. Second, India has established quite fewer deeply buried missile storage sites. Third, although road-mobile TELs have been developed for the missiles, majority of them are rail-based.

Ah,explain ?

 

[Secur]

As long as India survives

That is a fallacy actually , the purpose of nuclear weapons and resultant MAD aren't to kill each and every citizen of other country but merely to ensure that the country being targeted stops to function as a country/state , this is mutually assured destruction simply put . A victory at any cost or Pyrrhic victory is of no use .

India is four times as big as Pakistan and has a population six times as much. Logic dictates to cause similar level damage..Pakistan will need to deploy 4-5 times nuclear weapons than those required to by India.

Conventional wisdom says yes , however it unfortunately isn't applicable in such case since the damage is multi-fold and long term and not just limited to ground zero or the initial blast .

 

[Indo-guy]

That is a fallacy actually , the purpose of nuclear weapons and resultant MAD aren't to kill each and every citizen of other country but merely to ensure that the country being targeted stops to function as a country/state , this is mutually assured destruction simply put . A victory at any cost or Pyrrhic victory is of no use .

Pakistan doesn't have capability to destroy India .
India will survive the nuclear war with Pakistan but Pakistan won't.

It will be different if one talks of Nuclear war with China .

But then China is a responsible country and has huge stakes at global hierarchy.

MAD applies between two relatively equal opponents .

India is in different league from Pakistan .

It's simply impossible for Pakistan to destroy a country with population and size several times bigger .

Only option for Pakistan is to make peace with India and give up it's Anti -India stance .

Pakistan can never win any war against India - conventional or nuclear... !

In fact nuclear war with India will eliminate Pakistan forever from world map.

 

[ares]

That is a fallacy actually , the purpose of nuclear weapons and resultant MAD aren't to kill each and every citizen of other country but merely to ensure that the country being targeted stops to function as a country/state , this is mutually assured destruction simply put . A victory at any cost or Pyrrhic victory is of no use .



Conventional wisdom says yes , however it unfortunately isn't applicable in such case since the damage is multi-fold and long term and not just limited to ground zero or the initial blast .

Whatever the damage maybe its equally applicable to both sides..eg if you need x nos of nukes to do y percent damage to India....India can do the same percent damage to Pakistan in x/5 nukes. Missile sheilds once deployed will further swing these numbers in India's favour.

Additionally if india uses thermonuclear weapons then the equation further swings in India's favour by considerable margin.

 

[Secur]

India will survive the nuclear war with Pakistan but Pakistan won't.

There's no victory in nuclear war after all for a reason . The problem with that argument is that what survives will not be " India " . Since the statehood is done by the time , it all comes to a logical end . You seem to have difficulty comprehending the concept of " country " , it isn't limited to a group of people at a certain place .

It's simply impossible for Pakistan to destroy a country with population and size several times bigger .

Simply impossible ? No , it isn't . Pakistan has an ever expanding nuclear arsenal currently at 120 warheads and diverse delivery systems . The intention is to cause unacceptable damage from where there is no going back - a point of no return if you will . The complete destruction or annihilation you talk about is an outdated concept .

MAD applies between two relatively equal opponents .

Maybe it does . But the problem arises that both the countries are more than evenly matched unconventionally . The conventional disparity is different of course and something I believe that you have extrapolated .

Pakistan can never win any war against India - conventional or nuclear... !
In fact nuclear war with India will eliminate Pakistan forever from world map.

I was engaging a fan-boy it seems . If you say so , I have no intention to get you out of the comfort zone , good day .

 

[Indo-guy]

There's no victory in nuclear war after all for a reason . The problem with that argument is that what survives will not be " India " . Since the statehood is done by the time , it all comes to a logical end . You seem to have difficulty comprehending the concept of " country " , it isn't limited to a group of people at a certain place .

Indeed . I am not talking about India's victory in nuclear war against Pakistan.
I am simply saying India will survive - severely crippled but can recover .
Off course post war India will be different -
such war will push India at least a decade behind .
It will be a great setback - but not something like where Pakistan will be virtually destroyed .
I very well understand concept of country .

I am no way advocating nuclear war . I am simply saying - if it happens , India will still survive but Pakistan will be eliminated and so all the more reasons why Pakistan should prevent any such eventuality ...

 

[Secur]

Whatever the damage maybe its equally applicable to both sides..eg if you need x nos of nukes to do y percent damage to India....India can do the same percent damage to Pakistan in x/5 nukes. Missile sheilds once deployed will further swing these numbers in India's favour.

No , I wouldn't put it as being equally applicable to both sides , since I believe that you will have more to lose . Why does your assessment of the damage seems to include only the number of people killed and infrastructure destroyed ? The long term effects of nuclear fallout are more than what they appear at first glance . Missiles will be equipped with counter-measures when the shield comes online , the game continues .