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

[Pothead]

Any scenario where millions are killed.....

Well, let me paint the aftermath.
the political leadership + Military leadership will be tried for crimes against humanity & jailed.
Country will be taken over by idiots towing line of western powers.
With such destruction even break up is possible.

The only scenario where a "win" is possible for India is when nukes are not used.
Even if we do a second strike, rest of the world will simply not sit back and do nothing especially if millions are killed.

We should not be aggressors,
We should not go for "OVERT" war, unless Pakistanis themselves start it,
We should grab our goals inch by inch, which is less painful for us.

 

[screambowl]

ndia will 'win' with 200-300 million Indians dead and most like Indian economy pushed back to 1960s level for sometime. If we are wise we should work to minimize this loss and then fight the all out and hold no bar war.

Even if 500 million die , India is still left with 700 million And economy of India will neither get bad nor better. Reduction in population means higher GDP share per person - loss occurring due to war

1. Ensure that losses to India are limited. This can be done by employing more sophisticated missile defence and going big in the first place.
AND/OR

India can never ensure that. There will be huge loss. Let's be very frank. No matter how sophisticated systems India has, the war will cause very high damage to India. What India has to ensure is we are capable of handling this loss.

You need to ensure that instead of one Bangalore or one Mumbai there are 10s of thousands of Pune and Gurgaons and Chandigarhs in India. All our Jhansis need to become Pune even at the cost of Mumbai and Bangalore 'downgrading' to say Jaipur. Indian economy need to become a sprawling sub-urbia from a few downtowns.

If you do the above two then you never need to worry about nuclear war. It cann't kill or damage India at any strategic level. Basically you become a starfish. Even if one arm remains, you will grow back.

Yes, I agree to it. But unfortunately with current development pace, it will take us approx 50 years to reach where China is now. By that time what may happen no one knows. It's time which Indians don't have and soon we will realize this that the game is over.
Some one has to pay for the mistakes our previous generations and we are committing today or tomorow and as a society India has already lost the perception war. One war and India will end up into civil riots and that's the architecture of your enemy.

We should grab our goals inch by inch, which is less painful for us.

There is no goal

 

[Saaho]

Even if 500 million die , India is still left with 700 million And economy of India will neither get bad nor better. Reduction in population means higher GDP share per person - loss occurring due to war

You forgot that not only people will die but also factors of production and assets will be destroyed as well. Factories, education institutes, hospitals, SEZs will be lost. That will decimate the economy.

 

[vstol Jockey]

it is really very funny to go thru this thread. People are assuming whole lot of things without assigning any sequence to these. If you put it down in a sequence as the war will progress and as the things will build up, you will realise that most of the things which you have written here are not going to happen.

 

[Ashwin]

This video might help in understanding the Pakistani perspective:

A very insightful read:

1) Play the victim and lie like there is no tomorrow. 2) Go to every global event and threaten them that Pakistan will shoot itself. Pakistani doctrine did not change.

The only difference here is an effort to downplay the 'red line' crossing of the Balakot airstrike. Which showed a multitude of possible ways to deal with a nuclear security state. Thus the so-called 'nuclear bluff'.

This presentation was more convincing: South Asian strategic stability a Pakistani perspective. At least he tried to give some evidence for his claims.

 

[Nilgiri]

You forgot that not only people will die but also factors of production and assets will be destroyed as well. Factories, education institutes, hospitals, SEZs will be lost. That will decimate the economy.

Focused sustained investment in most effective means to detect, track and destroy relevant sites/platforms in first strike early is name of the game...with whatever cooperation from the known main 2 credible allies in this field that spooks Pakistan to this day.

BMD and airbourne interdiction is 2nd layer after that. There is not enough time/space between the two countries for any 3rd layer.

We cannot afford majority of pak nukes to just hit us....that is an absolute worst case scenario. Their "assured destruction" frontier must be made as inert as possible....and Indian strategic planners I am sure have long ago been working on addressing this. Funding and sustained real capacity to near fully deal with country with few nukes and little strategic depth in such situation will grow as Indian economy and wealth grows.

 

[The Deterrent]

It is indeed. The fact that Pakistan possesses ability to kill 200-300 million Indians makes it an existential threat. The fact the Pakistan choose to keep the first use option makes it an existential threat.

But you said that India will continue to exist, despite the damage Pakistan can do to India. If the very "existence" of India is not threatened, how is Pakistan an existential threat to India?
Case in point: Israel and its foes, during the 60s and 70s (and even today).

The fact that Pakistan chooses to employ asymmetrical warfare based on support for militants ( we call them terrorists, you call them freedom fighters ) makes it an existential threat.

So asymmetric warfare constitutes an existential threat? Well, I learned something new today.

At the very least, Pakistan is India's hypertension, Pakistan is India's diabetes. As such it wont immediately kill India but the fact it can do a silent and long term damage to India makes Pakistan lethal.

You'd be great at writing political speeches, you know.

Though I will like to make India in a country that is immune to a strategic damage by restructuring it into a distributed civilization where destroying mumbai only destroys mumbai and nothing more and remaining part can grow 10s of mumbais. Meaning, mumbai need to be smaller and rest of India needs 100s of such smaller mumbais capable of spawning 10s of mumbais. That will make me personally totally comfortable to fight a nuclear war with even China or USA for that matter.

If I understood you correctly, you propose a reform of a national scale, where larger cities should be pruned down and new cities should be set up, distributed in an even manner across the landmass of India...

(let me take this in)..

So that you'd be "comfortable" in fighting a nuclear war?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the PA will never use nukes?

If it comes to such an eventuality, uniformed personnel will of course face moral dilemmas across the hierarchy of the C&C chain. There is a possibility that some would refuse to follow orders, considering the consequences of their actions. That's a given thing.

However if you're asking that the 'boys', as a decision-making authority, will sit back and take the heat... I'm afraid the probability of that happening is very low. I hope we never have to find out.

Nuclear weapons only serve as a deterrence between unequal powers. Only equal powers can use it for warfighting.

Is there a rule or physical law somewhere that says so?
The fact is, that the dynamics of strategic stability and escalation management particularly in case of South-Asia, is pretty much uncharted territory. Both sides have their SOPs, but no definite answer can be given as to what will be the outcome of such an eventuality.

So the question is how much will the Pak Army general sell for?

You lost me there, I guess I have to watch Republic TV to understand that.

1) Play the victim and lie like there is no tomorrow. 2) Go to every global event and threaten them that Pakistan will shoot itself. Pakistani doctrine did not change.

Well it works...

Focused sustained investment in most effective means to detect, track and destroy relevant sites/platforms in first strike early is name of the game...with whatever cooperation from the known main 2 credible allies in this field that spooks Pakistan to this day.

BMD and airbourne interdiction is 2nd layer after that. There is not enough time/space between the two countries for any 3rd layer.

We cannot afford majority of pak nukes to just hit us....that is an absolute worst case scenario. Their "assured destruction" frontier must be made as inert as possible....and Indian strategic planners I am sure have long ago been working on addressing this. Funding and sustained real capacity to near fully deal with country with few nukes and little strategic depth in such situation will grow as Indian economy and wealth grows.

If I were to devise a strategy for such an eventuality (regardless of the cause), I'd do the following:

• Force Pakistan to cap its inventory at current strength, and roll back if possible
• Create hindrances in development of newer technology for delivering nuclear weapons
• Build up India's SFC to the readiness levels of US/Russia for CF targeting, meaning a larger, accurate, networked, fully assembled inventory
• Make it extremely difficult for Pakistan to assess India's readiness levels, so that an out-of-the-blue strike can be done
• Build up ISR capabilities specifically for tracking nuclear weapons. More satellites and ELINT platforms would be needed
• Develop and deploy a credible multi-layer missile defence system capable of dealing with the entire variety of Pakistani delivery systems
• Form a covert alliance with the US, to share intelligence and strike resources in case of such an eventuality
• Develop effective SOPs for disaster management of metropolitan centers

• Given a casus belli, conduct a massive pre-emptive CF strike against Pakistani first-strike elements. Preempt mobilization
• Evacuate citizens and brace for retaliation
• Intercept as many remaining missiles as possible, that Pakistan launches

 

[Saaho]

So that you'd be "comfortable" in fighting a nuclear war?

Not just that, it will makes all strategic weapons worthless against such a nation. And yes, ofcourse, it will make us very comfortable to destroy Pakistan in a nuclear war.

BTW, it also makes the country very very resilient against natural disasters since most of the needs of any part of the nation are catered locally. Centralization increases efficiency at the cost of fragility. Distribution increases resilience at the possible cost of efficiency.

 

[Saaho]

But you said that India will continue to exist, despite the damage Pakistan can do to India. If the very "existence" of India is not threatened, how is Pakistan an existential threat to India?

Threat is something that has potential to do that harm. It may or may not succeed. Right now it does not look like Pakistan can succeed but it still threatens.

So asymmetric warfare constitutes an existential threat? Well, I learned something new today.

It very much is! Asymmetric warfare allows Pakistan to do more damage to India at very little cost to itself. If taken to its logical conclusion it can challenge power of Indian government. So, yes it is a threat.

 

[Saaho]

it is really very funny to go thru this thread. People are assuming whole lot of things without assigning any sequence to these. If you put it down in a sequence as the war will progress and as the things will build up, you will realise that most of the things which you have written here are not going to happen.

This thread was an invitation to war-game on paper (or on internet) the things that may happen if the premises given in the thread are held true. Feel free to write your own sequence. I will love to see what a professional thinks will happen if the unthinkable conditions are met.

 

[rone]

As past asymmetric warfare was cost effective and meaning full for them after pulwama everything changed so next pulwama type attack will enable India to resort a much harder response than balkot strike, if u look back from Cross border raids surgical strike the ladder going up, so now Pakistan new weapon of choice will be putting their narrative and winning it, for that they use all their foregin asset's along with pak Libbie's on other national governments like on UK , US, Germany etc the counter for India will be Russians and purchasing power until we have Russians on our side no major action going to taken from UN also our purchasing power will keep all wannabe pak supporter's mouth shut by their own governments example UK and US, and other Arab countries , now the substantial threat will be China Turkey and Bangladesh ( yes they are) they can materialy or diplomaticaly support Pakistan in several ways these proxy's can be shut be establishing ties with their counter's like Myanmar, Vietnam, Greece

 

[The Deterrent]

Threat is something that has potential to do that harm. It may or may not succeed. Right now it does not look like Pakistan can succeed but it still threatens.

Sure, but is the harm "existential"?

It very much is! Asymmetric warfare allows Pakistan to do more damage to India at very little cost to itself. If taken to its logical conclusion it can challenge power of Indian government. So, yes it is a threat.

Again, I agree it is a threat. But I'd like to know how asymmetric warfare (and its "logical conclusion") is an existential threat.

 

[Saaho]

• Force Pakistan to cap its inventory at current strength, and roll back if possible

Impossible to achieve. US has not been able to stop NK or now may be Iran.

• Create hindrances in development of newer technology for delivering nuclear weapons

Ballistic missiles are a very efficient and effective delivery mechanism. Subsonic cruise missiles, not as much. Unfortunately, for the defender, this makes defence way harder.

• Build up India's SFC to the readiness levels of US/Russia for CF targeting, meaning a larger, accurate, networked, fully assembled inventory

Once India deploys a large majority of its strategic weapons in SSBNs, this automatically happens. SSBNs are always assembled and always ready. It is happening at a fast pace.

• Make it extremely difficult for Pakistan to assess India's readiness levels, so that an out-of-the-blue strike can be done

Refer to above.

• Build up ISR capabilities specifically for tracking nuclear weapons. More satellites and ELINT platforms would be needed

Happening already. Multitude of electro-optic satellites being launched, many carrying SAR and IR/IIR payloads. India recently launched an ELINT sat. More to come this year.

• Develop and deploy a credible multi-layer missile defence system capable of dealing with the entire variety of Pakistani delivery systems

Happening already. India is on a buying and developing spree as far as SAMs and missile defence goes. India's anti-sat test is also atleast a stepping stone to mid-course interception. Indian terminal interception capability is already at almost a level of THAAD. I believe in case of Pakistan, a BVR based boost-phase interception ability can also be argued with. If India knows (by virtue of HUMINT / ELINT), the possible launch points of a nuclear missile from Pakistan, then boost-phase interception using a missile like MBDA Meteor can be attempted. If I were India, I would conduct a test of boost phase interception using already inducted BVRs. Ofcourse this assumes that in case of war India takes the initiative and destroys bulk of Pakistan's air force and air defence network in the first strike.

• Form a covert alliance with the US, to share intelligence and strike resources in case of such an eventuality

Partly happened. And happening faster. Will accelatrate one US solves its afghan mess.

• Develop effective SOPs for disaster management of metropolitan centers

Not gonna happen anytime soon. India will have to save people from taking a hit but once they took a hit, it may make more sense to let them perish and focus resources on others who have not taken the hit.

• Given a casus belli, conduct a massive pre-emptive CF strike against Pakistani first-strike elements. Preempt mobilization

Yes and India does have capability to do that. Unless Pakistan deploys its nuclear weapons in the seas, India will have a advantage here. A tengent is that Pakistan may slip some of its strategic weapons in Afghanistan to increase its depth. That needs to be accounted for.

• Evacuate citizens and brace for retaliation

I will say spread them thin to begin with.

• Intercept as many remaining missiles as possible, that Pakistan launches

Thats similar to boost phase, mid course and terminal defence.

 

[Saaho]

Sure, but is the harm "existential"?

Yes, it is and it comes purely from the intent. Pakistan's intent is to integrate all of J&K and Laddakh into Pakistan. If that were to happen, it will question the Union of India. Any step in that direction is an existential threat.

Think in this way, unless any alternate arrangement happens, any step by Indian government to modify or misrepresent or abrogate IWT will be an existential threat to Pakistan.

 

[The Deterrent]

Yes, it is and it comes purely from the intent. Pakistan's intent is to integrate all of J&K and Laddakh into Pakistan. If that were to happen, it will question the Union of India. Any step in that direction is an existential threat.

Think in this way, unless any alternate arrangement happens, any step by Indian government to modify or misrepresent or abrogate IWT will be an existential threat to Pakistan.

I'm afraid we differ on the interpretation of the term. Allow me to bow out from this specific angle of the discussion.

 

[randomradio]

If it comes to such an eventuality, uniformed personnel will of course face moral dilemmas across the hierarchy of the C&C chain. There is a possibility that some would refuse to follow orders, considering the consequences of their actions. That's a given thing.

However if you're asking that the 'boys', as a decision-making authority, will sit back and take the heat... I'm afraid the probability of that happening is very low. I hope we never have to find out.

It entirely depends on who gives who what benefits and what the repercussions are.

If India threatens with "dire consequences" then it may not work throughout the chain of command. But what if it's the US doing the threatening? And what if Muslims countries also join in? It's obvious that a country that's going to cease to exist soon is not going to get the sort of leeway that an actual living country gets.

No country has fought to the last man when the country's nearing annihilation. The Nazis did not, the Japanese did not. Iraq did not either, in fact they decided not to fight at all. Self-preservation kicks in when you know you can't win. Which is also why Gen Niazi surrendered.

So you can expect at least some if not most of the chain of command to give in to a life of exile in a foreign country than being hunted down and killed by various intelligence agencies. Some will also be given the chance to command post-war remnants of the PA. And you can expect these "traitors" to provide intelligence about the chain of command who are vehemently opposed to giving up only if in order to increase their own benefits, never mind the ones who actually believe keeping Lahore and Karachi alive makes more sense than destroying Mumbai and Delhi.

And India's rapid modernisation is going to further persuade the fence-sitters, because the simple fact is, a nuclear war is pointless between unequal powers.

There's an age old adage which goes: People living in reinforced concrete buildings shouldn't throw stones at demolition crews.

 

[Paro]

So you can expect at least some if not most of the chain of command to give in to a life of exile in a foreign country than being hunted down and killed by various intelligence agencies. Some will also be given the chance to command post-war remnants of the PA. And you can expect these "traitors" to provide intelligence about the chain of command who are vehemently opposed to giving up only if in order to increase their own benefits, never mind the ones who actually believe keeping Lahore and Karachi alive makes more sense than destroying Mumbai and Delhi.

Most of the chain of command would move into Afghanistan to fight another day. Just like the Iraqi army, except for few revolutionary guard units who were earning time for its chain of command to go into hiding and cover their tracks.

 

[randomradio]

Most of the chain of command would move into Afghanistan to fight another day. Just like the Iraqi army, except for few revolutionary guard units who were earning time for its chain of command to go into hiding and cover their tracks.

That's the end of the PA then. All they will be able to manage is an insurgency, and this will be an expected result of not going nuclear. Plus, at this time, they will also have to contend with the US and Afghan forces, not just India's, which is basically a death knell for them. So it works in our favour.

 

[The Deterrent]

For some reason, there is a widespread belief within both the serving and veteran community of the Indian military, that Pakistan will never dare to use nuclear weapons...and that nuclear weapons are only used for deterrence, not to fight actual wars. I have little clue as to where this belief stems from, but I would say that beliefs of similar nature within the Pakistani military led them to commit the blunder of '99.

It entirely depends on who gives who what benefits and what the repercussions are.

If India threatens with "dire consequences" then it may not work throughout the chain of command. But what if it's the US doing the threatening? And what if Muslims countries also join in? It's obvious that a country that's going to cease to exist soon is not going to get the sort of leeway that an actual living country gets.

That is precisely why Pakistan has no "massive" strike doctrine. In order to gradually climb the escalation ladder (so that de-escalation off-ramp is available at every rung), proportional response options have been prepared at all three levels: tactical, operational and strategic.

The question is, when do the consequences become "dire"?
After mobilization?
After missile drills?
After demonstration strikes?
After battlefield strikes?
After CF/operational strikes?
After CV/strategic strikes?

No country has fought to the last man when the country's nearing annihilation. The Nazis did not, the Japanese did not. Iraq did not either, in fact they decided not to fight at all. Self-preservation kicks in when you know you can't win. Which is also why Gen Niazi surrendered.

I don't understand the relevance of this information here. But all the examples that you mentioned, did not have a "Samson option" to respond with. Pakistan does.

So you can expect at least some if not most of the chain of command to give in to a life of exile in a foreign country than being hunted down and killed by various intelligence agencies. Some will also be given the chance to command post-war remnants of the PA. And you can expect these "traitors" to provide intelligence about the chain of command who are vehemently opposed to giving up only if in order to increase their own benefits, never mind the ones who actually believe keeping Lahore and Karachi alive makes more sense than destroying Mumbai and Delhi.

This is bizarre theory, that's all I can say. '87, '02, '08 and last year's events have showed that Pakistan was not the first to blink. There is neither any precedence, nor any sort of other indication that something like this could remotely happen. The SOPs of Pakistan's NCA and SFCs are well-developed, and the whole point of these SOPs is that when the time comes, they are to be carried out as per protocol. Credible and assured capability to inflict damage is the only way to maintain deterrence.

because the simple fact is, a nuclear war is pointless between unequal powers.

I asked you before, where does this fact come from?

There's an age old adage which goes: People living in reinforced concrete buildings shouldn't throw stones at demolition crews.

At the moment it goes both ways. So let's not throw "stones", shall we?

 

[screambowl]

Yahan badi badi batein kar rahy ho wahan security waley apney bacho ka acha future k liye unka foreign mein admission karwaney ki soch rahey hai. This means what , they themselves have no trust on Indian system.

As I said and have been sayinf past 1 year. NO ONE in GOVERNMENT OF INDIA wants to fight Pakistan. The Babus and people in Intelligence fear big time!! And Military generals many of them are really not interested in war. They are most of the time busy with their cant parties and ball.

Every one is busy in raising their kids. Where as on the other side they also do the same, but when it comes to India,they are today and tomorrow every day ready to go for war. They also have kids and they also have wives.

Most of you are probably older to me, but in all these years I have learn that Indian society has lost self respect.