Let us think the unthinkable. If India decides to go for a decisive war with Pakistan, what an be realistic outcomes.

[The Deterrent]

Now you are talking about something else entirely. The argument already takes into consideration that it is worth it.

Then I have nothing to add except wishing you good luck.

Told ya, it's got nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. Are you one of those who think a 15kt bomb will take out an entire metro city? Cheers.

Nope, I'm an advocate of "clean" airbursts and oppose the over-hype of the scale of physical destruction caused by nuclear detonations.

However, I do think that if a metro loses 5% of its inhabitants over a period of a few days with additional 10% injured...during a nuclear war...with other metros facing the same events...I do think that they are effectively "taken out". If you want to call this kind of a war as something you've won, then I only have congratulations for you.

Of course it's "irrelevant". It doesn't suit your argument.

No, its irrelevant because nuclear arms-reduction treaties between two nuclear giants with simply too many nukes, have nothing to do with Pakistan's arsenal and how it doesn't have enough (as you said). I'd recommend not going off on tangents.

Common sense. Not optimism. Sorry, buddy, you're the one being optimistic if you think piddly firecrackers that Pak possesses are going to do anything.
View attachment 15888

Too bad you didn't check the casualties check box there. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties per metropolis per dispersed detonation is nothing to you. Unfortunately (rather fortunately), for the Indian leadership thats not the case.

Point is we didn't need to escalate anymore.

Rrrriiiight. Whatever helps you sleep.

The entire propaganda gambit from Pakistan is about stopping India's Cold Start with tac nukes. I am very well aware that Pak generals know the ground reality.

What you call TNWs, may not be what we call TNWs. Dunno if you want to say a 1mt nuke would qualify as a TNW if it's used against a C&C center hidden in the hills, away from civilian population.

Its not propaganda at all, Pakistani TNWs serve to deter Cold-Start style attacks, but not by nuking armored columns. Pakistan just prefers to effectively communicate some of its red lines, to ensure deterrence.

Which C&C on Pakistani soil do you want to destroy with a 1MT nuke? Besides, anything that big against a CF target (meaning ground detonation) will have fallout affecting population across borders. Anyhow, just for the sake of the argument, I'd still consider a ~100kT nuke against a hardened target a TNW. Anything bigger might have too much of a fallout.

Something worth looking at. From someone who's job was this topic.

RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES

RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES By Col Dr Narendar Singh, Ph D The recent hype in media for review and restructuring of Indian Army and the nuclearization of South Asia has brought in focus the Role of Ground Forces in future operations. The massive weaponization programme of Pakistan especially in...

www.strategicfront.org

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are totally different cases. The people were not aware of the effects of nuclear weapons, nor were they aware such a weapons had been developed.
Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing (the rebound of blast wave from hills) effect which would considerably increase the blast damage." No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.
When the air raid alarm went the Japanese were heading for their offices and were on street. Those who looked up amd saw a bright flash. Those who saw it got their eyes affected, the maximum casualties on the street were secondary injuries due to the rubble which went up. The city being industrial areas had large number of sheds with sheets on top, these got removed or pulled up and when these came crashing down caused injuries.
There was a hospital at 600meters from ground zero. When the air raid alarm went some of the doctors and nurses took shelter. These people were safe. The buildings glass and other attachments were shattred and all who came in direct line got affected, those patients who were lying in shadow of walls were safe.
The doctors and nurse not aware of the induced radiation came out of shelters and absorbed secondary radiations. The fire which razed was more of secondary fire due combustible material used in structures.
The deaths and other casualties are secondary casualties. These could have been avoided if the people had knowledge. If interested read Glasstone.

RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES

RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES By Col Dr Narendar Singh, Ph D The recent hype in media for review and restructuring of Indian Army and the nuclearization of South Asia has brought in focus the Role of Ground Forces in future operations. The massive weaponization programme of Pakistan especially in...

www.strategicfront.org

The area struck with nuclear weapons can be occupied after 48 to 72h depending on the salt content of the soil. It is half life formula.

RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES

But what makes you think that Pak will nuke India? Pnjabis are the most coward people in India or Pakistan. Will they accept complete destruction? Tell me one major battle for India fought in Punjab ever? I don't know about whether they are cowards or not, but there is a high probability of...

www.strategicfront.org

In lighter vein, if bomb drops at Vijay Chowk
a. Nothing will happen to structures constructed prior to 1947. North Block South Block totally safe.
2. All structures constructed post independence within 1000 m will crumple, constructed by PWD and MES. Cut was there.
3. People will throng to see the damage.
4. lots of selfies
Now on actual affect. Very little damage in Delhi. It is well dispersed city. Yes destruction will take place and we may have thousands of casualties. But the main problem will be the people who will come to see and take selfie. They will suffer from secondary injuries. We Indians never follow rules hence the damage.

=============

Let's just say you are more interested in propaganda than an actual discussion for the discovery of truth.

I do recommend reading Glasstone.

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons: 1977 Most Recent Public Version Available FULLY REMASTERED. Highest quality production copy available.: Glasstone, Samuel: 9781603220163: Amazon.com: Books

Buy The Effects of Nuclear Weapons: 1977 Most Recent Public Version Available FULLY REMASTERED. Highest quality production copy available. on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

It seems I have a thing for being misunderstood...

Last time they did this mistake it was '71. Didn't pan out well. Indian philosophy of giving no damns day in and day out but breaking back when it does works well.

They thought that India can never drop 370 too. Happened. Demographics change, on the way. For all we know next is Indus Water Treaty. I guess then they will learn. Or may be when India does a decapitation strike.

Biggest problem for India will be to do a proportionate reply. There is no proportionate weapon in India's armory.

Well if it takes 6 years to reply disproportionately, you might wanna go over how nuclear retaliation works. Drop the hyperbole and stop shooting off tangents.

For crying out loud, Pakistan has been openly supporting militancy in a territory that's completely under Indian control, for 30+ years. Dropping 370 & demographic changes in such a territory is a disproportionate response? Good grief...

Lets agree to disagree on if there are proportionate weapons in India's inventory.

 

[Saaho]

Well if it takes 6 years to reply disproportionately, you might wanna go over how nuclear retaliation works. Drop the hyperbole and stop shooting off tangents.

For crying out loud, Pakistan has been openly supporting militancy in a territory that's completely under Indian control, for 30+ years. Dropping 370 & demographic changes in such a territory is a disproportionate response? Good grief...

Errr... I guess you missed the point entirely. Point was, Pakistan is poor in understanding and estimating what Indian action/reaction will be. Pakistan has a history of underestimating Indian abilities. Indian game and successes have always been strategic while Pakistan's wins have always been tactical at best. Hence Pakistan can thinks of nuclear bombs in a tactical role. India does not need to use nuclear weapons in that role, it thinks to put that weapon in its right place : the strategic role.

BTW '71 was not exactly a response of 65. Response for 65 was opening the second front on non-disputed area. Another Pakistani underestimation.

 

[Saaho]

Lets agree to disagree on if there are proportionate weapons in India's inventory.

There aren't because we don't have any scenarios in which they will be useful. India has no fear of an advancing Pakistani tank column. Simple. For that we have enough attack helicopters and Pakistan does not have enough tanks. Last, geography. Delhi is far from Rajasthan or salt desert of Gujrat. Lahore not. Put it simply India has more depth than Pakistan to draw Pakistan's forces and destroy them with a scorched earth tactic. Pakistan will be overrun in weeks if not days.

 

[Saaho]

However, I do think that if a metro loses 5% of its inhabitants over a period of a few days with additional 10% injured...during a nuclear war...with other metros facing the same events...I do think that they are effectively "taken out". If you want to call this kind of a war as something you've won, then I only have congratulations for you.

Well if that is the trade, I will say its a win. Given I get entire Pakistan Punjab dead and most of the Pashtoons dying. But being a baniya, I will try to get even a better bargain, hence missile defence development.

 

[randomradio]

Then I have nothing to add except wishing you good luck.

This is a discussion, not a prediction.

Nope, I'm an advocate of "clean" airbursts and oppose the over-hype of the scale of physical destruction caused by nuclear detonations.

However, I do think that if a metro loses 5% of its inhabitants over a period of a few days with additional 10% injured...during a nuclear war...with other metros facing the same events...I do think that they are effectively "taken out". If you want to call this kind of a war as something you've won, then I only have congratulations for you.

If 5-10% of a population is taken out, the immediate area is extremely badly affected, and emergency services and medical will fail completely.

But the rest of the city will continue functioning almost as normal. Metro cities are "gigantic" after all. More nukes on metros means less nukes elsewhere. So you most definitely need a ridiculously large arsenal in reality. Hence the argument that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is too small. This is literally "common sense". First time seeing someone argue against common sense.

I don't think you have really appreciated the size and scale of Indian cities, especially the number of economic clusters that have come up within the metros. The number of nukes you need to actually destroy these economic clusters are phenomenal. With double digit growth rates of the cities, in a few years a mere mohalla in a metro will have a greater GDP than that of a state in Pakistan. You need to stop looking at the city as a monolith and start considering revenue generating mohallas within a city as an individual target. That's the scale Pakistan actually has to deal with.

Our reasons for not wanting a nuclear war with Pakistan are completely different from what you are assuming. Our reasons are pragmatic and not emotional.

No, its irrelevant because nuclear arms-reduction treaties between two nuclear giants with simply too many nukes, have nothing to do with Pakistan's arsenal and how it doesn't have enough (as you said). I'd recommend not going off on tangents.

Exactly my point. Pakistan's arsenal is too small to be used for warfighting. Even "small" countries like US and Russia need thousands of nukes to actually claim to be able to fight a nuclear war. Pakistan's nukes are only for deterrence. There's an extremely long bridge between deterrence and warfighting.

Too bad you didn't check the casualties check box there. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties per metropolis per dispersed detonation is nothing to you. Unfortunately (rather fortunately), for the Indian leadership thats not the case.

So now your aguments are going towards the emotional aspect.

As I said before, we are arguing from the point where the Indian leadership has decided to go nuclear after considering all the losses.

All your arguments are "Pakistan will use tac nukes at the border, India will do nothing". Now, when we are talking about actual physical damage, including casualties, you've gone off on an emotional tangent. It's you who are being ridiculously optimistic. It's obvious that if India decides to go nuclear, all these aspects will be taken into consideration.

This should answer your question:

NUCLEAR TARGETING OPTIONS FOR INDIA

First Strike[1] is Eschewed After conducting nuclear test, India declared its policy of ‘no first use’.[2]There is no question of nuclear war fighting as a preferred option as both the aggressor and India may suffer. There will be little satisfaction in the fact ‘they’ suffered more damage then...

www.strategicfront.org

@Narendar Singh Sir, what measures are in place to ensure that India will carry out a punitive counter strike in case of first strike? I mean we have likes of Sushma Swaraj who always parrot "India is not looking for escalation" line. What if PM (may be owing to external political pressure) decides not to go for a counter strike after 4-5 nuclear strikes on important Indian cities, are there mechanisms in place that will ensure India retaliates?

-One simple answer Yes.

Rrrriiiight. Whatever helps you sleep.

You have a lot of catching up to do. Maybe one day you will read about it when the actual news comes out.

Its not propaganda at all, Pakistani TNWs serve to deter Cold-Start style attacks, but not by nuking armored columns. Pakistan just prefers to effectively communicate some of its red lines, to ensure deterrence.

We consider that a bluff.

Ready to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, says Army Chief Bipin Rawat

Army Chief General Bipin Rawat said India and the US were deliberating on a proposal to appoint military liaison officers at each other’s combatant commands.

www.hindustantimes.com

How is a bluff deterrence?

Your arguments are slipping with every post you make.

First, let's see if Pakistan actually operationally deployes tac nukes. Until then, all of this is just a figment of your imagination.

Which C&C on Pakistani soil do you want to destroy with a 1MT nuke? Besides, anything that big against a CF target (meaning ground detonation) will have fallout affecting population across borders. Anyhow, just for the sake of the argument, I'd still consider a ~100kT nuke against a hardened target a TNW. Anything bigger might have too much of a fallout.

I was just throwing a number.

It's obvious that we have tactical nukes of some kind or the other, specially the air-dropped kind. At least we are on the same page when it comes to Pakistan's ability to prevent Cold Start with tac nukes. Merely a bluff.

It seems I have a thing for being misunderstood...

You need to actually start making tangible arguments first.

 

[screambowl]

India has not operationalized any tactical nuclear weapons till date. Tactical is not even used in same sentence with nuclear weapons in Indian stratagems. @Falcon @vstol Jockey @Narendar Singh Please correct me if I am wrong.

No one would know that.

 

[Milspec]

I'm afraid you're mistaken in correlating the deterrence strategy of an era gone by to the present day nuclear deterrence. Both situations are drastically different.

I wish I could explain to you somehow that if shit hits the fan, the Pakistani military will gamble on going first to "win", rather than standing down and facing what the Iraqi military faced.

Welcome back, Good to see your post.

You claimed that PowerCenter have never overlapped with doctrines, I conclusively showed how that is not accurate.

There is no doubt that Pakistan will fight with full force, but as soon as it hits the nuke button, it's lost. That's where self-preservation kicks in.

Remember what PA has to lose here. PA here standing for Pak Mil establishment as a whole. Despite how much you might claim otherwise, it is clear to everyone that the power center in Pakistan is in GHQ and not Islamabad. If it fights a nuke war, It loses that chokehold on Pakistan.

Also remember after every loss to India, Pakistan military's chokehold on nation just grows stronger. Kargil might have been a debacle for PA, but a brilliant masterstroke for the military, wasn't it?

 

[Saaho]

No one would know that.

If its India, then yes, we will know. There will be books and leaked presentation slides about it. For the same reason we know about NASR and tactical warheads.

Besides this :

 

[The Deterrent]

Errr... I guess you missed the point entirely. Point was, Pakistan is poor in understanding and estimating what Indian action/reaction will be. Pakistan has a history of underestimating Indian abilities. Indian game and successes have always been strategic while Pakistan's wins have always been tactical at best. Hence Pakistan can thinks of nuclear bombs in a tactical role. India does not need to use nuclear weapons in that role, it thinks to put that weapon in its right place : the strategic role.

BTW '71 was not exactly a response of 65. Response for 65 was opening the second front on non-disputed area. Another Pakistani underestimation.

Completely agreed with that. But I was referring to disproportionate responses, not unexpected responses. For example a disproportionate response to Kargil could've been invasion of AJK. There is no precedence of anything like that, AFAIK. Tactical gambles in a conventional war are very different from the same in a nuclear war.

There aren't because we don't have any scenarios in which they will be useful. India has no fear of an advancing Pakistani tank column. Simple. For that we have enough attack helicopters and Pakistan does not have enough tanks. Last, geography. Delhi is far from Rajasthan or salt desert of Gujrat. Lahore not. Put it simply India has more depth than Pakistan to draw Pakistan's forces and destroy them with a scorched earth tactic. Pakistan will be overrun in weeks if not days.

I already said that my opinion is based on evidence, thats it. Nevertheless, the problem for Indian decision makers will not be a Pakistani conventional assault, rather a small TNW strike causing a 100 or so uniformed casualties on Pakistani soil.

Well if that is the trade, I will say its a win. Given I get entire Pakistan Punjab dead and most of the Pashtoons dying. But being a baniya, I will try to get even a better bargain, hence missile defence development.

Well then I have nothing more to add. I hope you find the peace that you're looking for.

 

[nair]

@The Deterrent Good to see you back

 

[jetray]

Nevertheless, the problem for Indian decision makers will not be a Pakistani conventional assault, rather a small TNW strike causing a 100 or so uniformed casualties on Pakistani soil.

We dont have overwhelming conventional superiority , economic might and big powers approval. I dont think India hardly cares about pakistans TNW. We can call your bluff any time.

Just think of a scenario where we fight a half assed war , pakistan uses TNW and war stops due to international pressure, then pakistan will be the biggest loser. From India's perspective it will be a great idea to stop the war immediately and show pakistan as an irresponsible country. Not to mention fertile areas of pakistan will get devastated and equal part in India as well. But India being large we can recover financially but suffer some heavy loss of lives.

As such I believe only option for pakistan is to go full hog and I dont think world will be pleased with it. Whether India or pakistan there will be heavy pressure to back down or even worse both countries might end up being denuclearized or nukes put under a watch dog.

Most probable scenario is India takes a swing at pakistan once we grow economically strong and then leave it to stutter. The whole idea of invading,occupying or liberating areas are all wild impractical theories. Other than satisfying some fringe elements there is nothing to be gained by indulging in a full scale invasion.

there are ways and tricks to reach indian cities before our own total destruction. I don't want to explain the doctrine

Interesting , please let us know the divine secret.....................please.................

 

[Arvind]

Also remember after every loss to India, Pakistan military's chokehold on nation just grows stronger. Kargil might have been a debacle for PA, but a brilliant masterstroke for the military, wasn't it?

Interesting disposition. Someone can write a thesis on how Pak Army could maintain the civilian faith and trust in them despite losing half of the country and failing thrice in achieving any kind of objective for which it razed a war.

Excellent PR or compulsion (self preservation)?

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent Good to see you back

Just dropping in, couldn't be very active lately.

This is a discussion, not a prediction.

Hmmm, I must be hearing something other than predictions from you so far.

If 5-10% of a population is taken out, the immediate area is extremely badly affected, and emergency services and medical will fail completely.

But the rest of the city will continue functioning almost as normal. Metro cities are "gigantic" after all.

Your oversimplification of facts is astounding.

Est. 1 Million injured (ref. NukeMap, 45kT singular "clean" airburst) in a city like Bangalore will cause the emergency services will fail for the most of the city and suburbs, because they will be tending to the affected part. If its the heart of the city, logistics of every related economic activity there would be gone. The city will transition into a "survival mode", where the inhabitants will be forced to focus on just food, water, shelter...for months, until normal life resumes. Law and order problems, civil unrest etc. will skyrocket.
A "dirty" ground detonation would cause lesser damage, lesser casualties, but the fallout will be immense. The psychological trauma will be paralyzing. Depending on the prevailing winds, the inhabitants will be forced to stay indoors for weeks, and the affected area will become a no-go zone for years.

I'm not even talking about multiple nukes per city or a higher yield Pakistani design yet.

More nukes on metros means less nukes elsewhere. So you most definitely need a ridiculously large arsenal in reality. Hence the argument that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is too small. This is literally "common sense". First time seeing someone argue against common sense.

Again, oversimplifying and somehow trying to prove that EACH city in India needs to be nuked in order for it to not "win" the war.

Try to understand Pakistan's point of view regarding countervalue targeting. Pakistan intends to keep it minimal, and merely make the costs of a nuclear exchange...unacceptable. To the point that it is not worth it for India to wage to a nuclear war.
To that effect, nuking the top 10 cities with multiple nukes each and accounting for redundancies would require, lets say, 50 nukes of high yield (~50 kT each). For Pakistan, thats more than enough, and it already has this arsenal.

Pakistan does NOT wants to physically erase India off the map, that's impossible even for India to do to Pakistan.

I don't think you have really appreciated the size and scale of Indian cities, especially the number of economic clusters that have come up within the metros. The number of nukes you need to actually destroy these economic clusters are phenomenal. With double digit growth rates of the cities, in a few years a mere mohalla in a metro will have a greater GDP than that of a state in Pakistan. You need to stop looking at the city as a monolith and start considering revenue generating mohallas within a city as an individual target. That's the scale Pakistan actually has to deal with.

I don't think you have really appreciated the size and scale of the psychological impact of a nuclear war.
I realize the scale, but Pakistan does not HAVE to deal with that scale. That's your definition of what "losing" a nuclear war means.

Our reasons for not wanting a nuclear war with Pakistan are completely different from what you are assuming. Our reasons are pragmatic and not emotional.

YOUR personal reasons are pragmatic, not India's. At the end of the day, as a state, Pakistan is more prepared and accepting of being blown to oblivion, than India.

Exactly my point. Pakistan's arsenal is too small to be used for warfighting. Even "small" countries like US and Russia need thousands of nukes to actually claim to be able to fight a nuclear war. Pakistan's nukes are only for deterrence. There's an extremely long bridge between deterrence and warfighting.

Again somehow trying to prove that Pakistan needs to be able to strike EVERY counterforce target, so that its arsenal can be worthy of "warfighting".

My argument for counterforce targeting is based on facts. Post Shaheen-2, Pakistan has only increased the range (Shaheen-3) and increased number of warheads (Ababeel). EVERYTHING else (SRBMs, cruise missiles, TNWs) has been focused on the shorter range arsenal...for a reason. Besides, Pakistan does not needs to nuke every cantonment and every vessel. Potential targets could be SFC bases, airbases, forward cantts, ACs and so on.

Simply put, Pakistan has the numbers it needs for deterrence, and will soon have the numbers it needs for warfighting.

So now your aguments are going towards the emotional aspect.

Yes, because I live in the real world, not sitting in a comfy chair calculating outcomes of nuclear exchange based on 5 variables.
In the real world, people's lives are taken into account. It is not macho to treat the population as mere numbers, and declaring victory is possible if at the end of the day your number is bigger than mine.

As I said before, we are arguing from the point where the Indian leadership has decided to go nuclear after considering all the losses.

No, I am not arguing from that point at all. I'm arguing from the point that the costs will be unacceptable for India.
I realize thats not the point of this thread. If this is considered off-topic, I'll stop responding then.

All your arguments are "Pakistan will use tac nukes at the border, India will do nothing". Now, when we are talking about actual physical damage, including casualties, you've gone off on an emotional tangent. It's you who are being ridiculously optimistic. It's obvious that if India decides to go nuclear, all these aspects will be taken into consideration.

This should answer your question:

NUCLEAR TARGETING OPTIONS FOR INDIA

First Strike[1] is Eschewed After conducting nuclear test, India declared its policy of ‘no first use’.[2]There is no question of nuclear war fighting as a preferred option as both the aggressor and India may suffer. There will be little satisfaction in the fact ‘they’ suffered more damage then...

www.strategicfront.org

@Narendar Singh Sir, what measures are in place to ensure that India will carry out a punitive counter strike in case of first strike? I mean we have likes of Sushma Swaraj who always parrot "India is not looking for escalation" line. What if PM (may be owing to external political pressure) decides not to go for a counter strike after 4-5 nuclear strikes on important Indian cities, are there mechanisms in place that will ensure India retaliates?

-One simple answer Yes.

No, I never said that "India will do nothing". I said that India will not retaliate with a massive disproportionate response. Proportionate (nuclear) response will always be there for India to implement.

Also, I believe I never said or imply that India will not respond to 4-5 nuclear strikes on important cities (or any other similar scenario). All I've said is that the response will be proportionate (with perhaps a "cherry on top"").

You have a lot of catching up to do. Maybe one day you will read about it when the actual news comes out.

Haha, not only will I read about it, I will try to make sure to post here "I told you so".

We consider that a bluff.

Ready to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, says Army Chief Bipin Rawat

Army Chief General Bipin Rawat said India and the US were deliberating on a proposal to appoint military liaison officers at each other’s combatant commands.

www.hindustantimes.com

How is a bluff deterrence?

First, let's see if Pakistan actually operationally deployes tac nukes. Until then, all of this is just a figment of your imagination.

Likewise, Pakistan considers the massive disproportionate retaliation a bluff (much more than what the CDS thinks of Pakistan). Guess who will be the first one to find out about the other side.

So far, it hasn't been called. As I said before, India has had plenty of chances to call it, and the only reason it hasn't is because it doesn't know for sure if its a bluff.

If "operational deployment" means having produced the warheads & missiles in numbers, inducting it in the SFC, conducting training exercises and stationing them at a missile base...then yes, they have been operationally deployed.

At least we are on the same page when it comes to Pakistan's ability to prevent Cold Start with tac nukes. Merely a bluff.

What? Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

You need to actually start making tangible arguments first.

Of course, I'M the one making intangible arguments here. As far as this topic is concerned, I have said everything that I wanted to, apart from that we're going around in circles. I don't particularly enjoy doing that over and over again.

Welcome back, Good to see your post.

You claimed that PowerCenter have never overlapped with doctrines, I conclusively showed how that is not accurate.

There is no doubt that Pakistan will fight with full force, but as soon as it hits the nuke button, it's lost. That's where self-preservation kicks in.

Remember what PA has to lose here. PA here standing for Pak Mil establishment as a whole. Despite how much you might claim otherwise, it is clear to everyone that the power center in Pakistan is in GHQ and not Islamabad. If it fights a nuke war, It loses that chokehold on Pakistan.

Also remember after every loss to India, Pakistan military's chokehold on nation just grows stronger. Kargil might have been a debacle for PA, but a brilliant masterstroke for the military, wasn't it?

Let me add one word to my previous claim:
"PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its NUCLEAR deterrence strategies and doctrines."
I hope that explains it better now?

A point at which Pakistan would need to press the nuke button (for countervalue targeting) means that Pakistan has no other option left. That's why Pakistan has introduced flexibility in the brinksmanship doctrine, and wants to go first with TNWs (counterforce targeting), so that the response is still "manageable".

Of course the power center is in GHQ, but you're overstating what the PA's (correct term would be establishment's) objective is. Its not primarily a corporation focused on revenue generation, no matter how much Republic TV would want you to believe.

When it comes to NUCLEAR deterrence, the establishment realizes that all bets in that case would be off and there will be no tomorrow for them. Case in point, 2008 and 2019 standoffs. They (through GoP) were not merely hollow-wording that the costs will be high because we have nooks. Things were set into motion according to the SOPs and were ready for the respective alert levels.

Again, please stop drawing conclusions from Kargil-like conflicts and previous conventional wars. All I can say is that perhaps you need a deeper look into what the establishment thinks about nukes.

We dont have overwhelming conventional superiority , economic might and big powers approval. I dont think India hardly cares about pakistans TNW. We can call your bluff any time.

Sir, you are very welcome to call Pakistan's bluff any time. Pakistan is always ready to show its cards (in this specific context).

Just think of a scenario where we fight a half assed war , pakistan uses TNW and war stops due to international pressure, then pakistan will be the biggest loser. From India's perspective it will be a great idea to stop the war immediately and show pakistan as an irresponsible country. Not to mention fertile areas of pakistan will get devastated and equal part in India as well. But India being large we can recover financially but suffer some heavy loss of lives.

That outcome is actually one of the best ones for Pakistan in this scenario.

As such I believe only option for pakistan is to go full hog and I dont think world will be pleased with it. Whether India or pakistan there will be heavy pressure to back down or even worse both countries might end up being denuclearized or nukes put under a watch dog.

Most probable scenario is India takes a swing at pakistan once we grow economically strong and then leave it to stutter. The whole idea of invading,occupying or liberating areas are all wild impractical theories. Other than satisfying some fringe elements there is nothing to be gained by indulging in a full scale invasion.

A quite possible aftermath. And agreed with the last lines.

If its India, then yes, we will know. There will be books and leaked presentation slides about it. For the same reason we know about NASR and tactical warheads.

Besides this :

View attachment 15906

View attachment 15905

Thank you for posting this, was exactly my point in the previous post. I believe India has conveyed via back-channels that it has TNWs too, it just doesn't wants to declare it publicly because its bad for PR.

 

[randomradio]

Hmmm, I must be hearing something other than predictions from you so far.

I'm hearing nothing from you so far.

Est. 1 Million injured (ref. NukeMap, 45kT singular "clean" airburst) in a city like Bangalore will cause the emergency services will fail for the most of the city and suburbs, because they will be tending to the affected part. If its the heart of the city, logistics of every related economic activity there would be gone. The city will transition into a "survival mode", where the inhabitants will be forced to focus on just food, water, shelter...for months, until normal life resumes. Law and order problems, civil unrest etc. will skyrocket.

You have been reading too many comic books. Life will continue as usual for those who weren't affected by the nuclear blast after a few days. This is common sense.

All this focus on food, water etc is for the affected parts. Law and order will not be a problem, the same way it wasn't a problem in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, life went on as usual in unaffected parts. There is historical evidence for it. So this is just a typical attempt at trying to use scare tactics, like all those anti-nuclear lobbies.

Look, all this will work only if the entire city is affected by a nuclear attack, not just some mohalla in the corner. If you had hundreds of megatonne yield nukes loaded on MIRVs and such, you can make such claims. In reality, your nukes are so small and in such small numbers that most of a metro city will go on as usual.

A "dirty" ground detonation would cause lesser damage, lesser casualties, but the fallout will be immense. The psychological trauma will be paralyzing. Depending on the prevailing winds, the inhabitants will be forced to stay indoors for weeks, and the affected area will become a no-go zone for years.

Psychological trauma to even a small bomb blast will be immense, let alone a nuclear attack. But it will be paralyzing only in the affected parts.

No, the affected parts will become accessible in just a few days. Your knowledge on this subject is highly questionable.

The area struck with nuclear weapons can be occupied after 48 to 72h depending on the salt content of the soil. It is half life formula.

The 7:10 Rule of Thumb

Again, oversimplifying and somehow trying to prove that EACH city in India needs to be nuked in order for it to not "win" the war.

Try to understand Pakistan's point of view regarding countervalue targeting. Pakistan intends to keep it minimal, and merely make the costs of a nuclear exchange...unacceptable. To the point that it is not worth it for India to wage to a nuclear war.
To that effect, nuking the top 10 cities with multiple nukes each and accounting for redundancies would require, lets say, 50 nukes of high yield (~50 kT each). For Pakistan, thats more than enough, and it already has this arsenal.

Yes, that's called deterrence, not warfighting.

When India and Pakistan go to war, a piddly amount of weapons meant for deterrence will play a seemingly small part.

Pakistan does NOT wants to physically erase India off the map, that's impossible even for India to do to Pakistan.

Which is why I said a nuclear war is unlikely for Pakistan to make use of, which I pointed out a long time ago. If the two countries have a nuclear showdown, India will continue to exist, but Pakistan will be occupied and balkanised instead, irrespective of the damage to Indian cities. So it doesn't make sense for Pakistan to go down that road.

I don't think you have really appreciated the size and scale of the psychological impact of a nuclear war.

That's only in the affected parts. In the unaffected parts, there will only be the initial shock followed by anger.

I realize the scale, but Pakistan does not HAVE to deal with that scale. That's your definition of what "losing" a nuclear war means.

Unless Pakistan is able to deal with the scale, a nuclear war for Pakistan is pointless.

YOUR personal reasons are pragmatic, not India's. At the end of the day, as a state, Pakistan is more prepared and accepting of being blown to oblivion, than India.

Okay, so you're willing to lose your country in exchange for some damage to India? Great. Works for us.

Yes, because I live in the real world, not sitting in a comfy chair calculating outcomes of nuclear exchange based on 5 variables.
In the real world, people's lives are taken into account. It is not macho to treat the population as mere numbers, and declaring victory is possible if at the end of the day your number is bigger than mine.

All this comes into play after the war is over. During the war, all we will have is media blackout, internet blackout, lack of actual information etc.

You can assume that all you pointed out will be taken into consideration long before the war actually begins. So it's not going to affect the govt's decisions during war. Post war is a different story. But by then it's too late for Pakistan.

Look, you have to consider everything from Pakistan's perspective, not India's, and with worst scenario outcomes. All you are looking at is the best case for Pakistan and nothing else. Even the absolute worst case for India is the destruction of a few cities.

No, I am not arguing from that point at all. I'm arguing from the point that the costs will be unacceptable for India.

The problem is "unacceptable" is subjective. We don't know what GoI would consider unacceptable. Would GoI accept the loss of all metro cities in exchange for the balkanisation of Pakistan? Would GoI consider the loss of not just metros, but even the near-peer of metros acceptable?

There are most definitely some who believe that even if half of India's population is wiped out, that's acceptable.

What if GoI believes the actual losses will be negligible anyway?

No, I never said that "India will do nothing". I said that India will not retaliate with a massive disproportionate response. Proportionate (nuclear) response will always be there for India to implement.

Also, I believe I never said or imply that India will not respond to 4-5 nuclear strikes on important cities (or any other similar scenario). All I've said is that the response will be proportionate (with perhaps a "cherry on top"").

Doesn't make sense when sitting on this side. This literally only works in Pakistan's favour.

Haha, not only will I read about it, I will try to make sure to post here "I told you so".

Looking forward to that.

Likewise, Pakistan considers the massive disproportionate retaliation a bluff (much more than what the CDS thinks of Pakistan). Guess who will be the first one to find out about the other side.

So far, it hasn't been called. As I said before, India has had plenty of chances to call it, and the only reason it hasn't is because it doesn't know for sure if its a bluff.

This is something Falcon has already pointed out numerous times. We haven't yet gone to war with Pakistan because Pakistan itself is doing more damage to itself than India's limited war will. And we most definitely do not want all the separatist elements within Pakistan to unite under the PA's leadership due to the India boogeyman.

Limited war becomes a more interesting concept once Pak economy switches gear, and PA has reduced separatists to a pittance.

Changing the status quo is unacceptable to us. An imploding Pakistan is a much better option for obvious reasons. The Pakistan of today is unable to modernise its military, cannot absorb economic shocks, so on. Why would we want to change that?

If "operational deployment" means having produced the warheads & missiles in numbers, inducting it in the SFC, conducting training exercises and stationing them at a missile base...then yes, they have been operationally deployed.

Hey, hey, which ones? Nasr? Or air dropped nukes. Aren't the same. Nasr based nukes specifically to stop armoured advances haven't been deployed.

Tac nukes against some types of static targets have been in use since a long time.

What? Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

Didn't you say tac nukes cannot be used against an armoured push? Or are you going back on that now?

Of course, I'M the one making intangible arguments here. As far as this topic is concerned, I have said everything that I wanted to, apart from that we're going around in circles. I don't particularly enjoy doing that over and over again.

I guess we have been going around in circles. I think you're unrealistic, you think I'm unrealistic, so it doesn't look like anything's gonna change here.

I'll leave you to keep fantasizing about only the best case scenarios for Pakistan.

 

[Milspec]

Let me add one word to my previous claim:
"PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its NUCLEAR deterrence strategies and doctrines."
I hope that explains it better now?

A point at which Pakistan would need to press the nuke button (for countervalue targeting) means that Pakistan has no other option left. That's why Pakistan has introduced flexibility in the brinksmanship doctrine, and wants to go first with TNWs (counterforce targeting), so that the response is still "manageable".

Of course the power center is in GHQ, but you're overstating what the PA's (correct term would be establishment's) objective is. Its not primarily a corporation focused on revenue generation, no matter how much Republic TV would want you to believe.

When it comes to NUCLEAR deterrence, the establishment realizes that all bets in that case would be off and there will be no tomorrow for them. Case in point, 2008 and 2019 standoffs. They (through GoP) were not merely hollow-wording that the costs will be high because we have nooks. Things were set into motion according to the SOPs and were ready for the respective alert levels.

Again, please stop drawing conclusions from Kargil-like conflicts and previous conventional wars. All I can say is that perhaps you need a deeper look into what the establishment thinks about nukes.

My worldview is not informed by any tv channels.

The reason why I emphasize of Kargil is that both countries were Nuclear Powers at the time, and PA shows that it capitulates its fighting resolve pretty quickly when it sees untenable positions. That reinforces my theory that PA's main goal in case of SHTF as soon as IA crosses the so-called threshold there would be ceasefire negotiations instead of TNW's coming out. Not to mention the PA's unilateral actions and strategic calibration has been piss poor as always.

Coming to 2008 there was zero action by Indian establishment, in 2019 engagement was limited with again zero mobilizations.

 

[AbRaj]

From the discussion it’s obvious that @The Deterrent would like to hype the destructive power of WMDs Pakistanis posses while @randomradio tend to downplay it. To me reality is somewhere in between. And in my opinion If that if the chemotherapy is effective to Cure the Cancer, we should go for it

 

[Milspec]

Interesting disposition. Someone can write a thesis on how Pak Army could maintain the civilian faith and trust in them despite losing half of the country and failing thrice in achieving any kind of objective for which it razed a war.

Excellent PR or compulsion (self preservation)?

Christine Fair wrote many books on the same.

 

[jetray]

That outcome is actually one of the best ones for Pakistan in this scenario

Care to explain how?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Christine Fair wrote many books on the same.

She's outrightly declared that India should call Pakistan's bluff. According to her, the PA is too deeply invested in Pakistan's economy & it's own privileged lifestyle to undertake any measure which would jeopardize it. She's also cited multiple war gaming scenarios conducted by US think tanks including one by the Naval war college with ex senior generals of the PA including ones in charge of their SFC which have clearly demonstrated that there's no way the PA would win even if they were to resort to the last option viz exercising the N option.

@The Deterrent like the PA is doing a very good job defending a weak hand. The only equivalent I can think of in nature are copy cats viz a non venomous snake with the same colour pattern as a venomous one usually gets the benefit of doubt by the predators & is left alone.

China in the days of Mao would resort to the same behavior everytime alternatively with the US & the former USSR by threatening to unleash N weapons in spite of being the weaker side on the pretext that China wouldn't mind the loss of half it's civilians to a N CV attack.

Considering his own track record during the 5 sparrows campaign, the great leap forward & the cultural revolution & the civilian casualties in these mad experiments running in millions of dead , both the US & the former USSR were spooked enough to believe him .

Closer to our times Kim Jong Un & his father seem to have successfuly taken out a page from Mao's books. Pakistan repeating this behavior thus should be seen in this light. At any rate I've always held that any reclamation of PoJ&K should be preceded by the Defanging of Pakistan's N arsenal, production capacities & delivery platforms with outside help if we can manage it or alone if there's no choice.

 

[randomradio]

From the discussion it’s obvious that @The Deterrent would like to hype the destructive power of WMDs Pakistanis posses while @randomradio tend to downplay it. To me reality is somewhere in between. And in my opinion If that if the chemotherapy is effective to Cure the Cancer, we should go for it

I've actually not even considered BMD. Delhi will be the first to get it.