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

No matter how much sophisticated weapons India buys. They will be decommissioned after 50 years without any usage. And Pakistan just like on 27th Feb will fool our sophisticated radars that there is a build up in air.

There is a reason why Pakistan is able to hold us back. It's not about the weapons. Pakistan knows Indians don't want territory full of Muslim inhabitants. There fore all the wars which India will fight with Pakistan from now on will either lead to a new Islamic republic or a status quo. And a new Islamic republic formed will be a new headache.

Pakistan is a reality and POK is gone for ever. I am a young Hindu and I have accepted our defeat. Thank you leaders and 100 crore people of India. Soon India will be an Islamic republic as well. I advice all get married and get your daughter married to a muslim at least, like Jodhabai got married to Akbar and Akbar forgave the Rajputs. As a Muslim he will convert her and she can be treated like a first citizen of India, unlike Hindus who can't even protect themselves in their ownland. Example Kashmir.

Fed up with Indian talks without any actions. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Pakistan excels in cheap proxy wars and we have not been able to answer it with an effective solution.

Some of their work in full swing.
Indian Navy honeytrap case: 13 personnel apprehended in espionage probe

Because Pakistani military has a say and they are innovative and have muslim support. They are dedicated when it comes to India. They want to spread Islam. Indian security personals and specially Hindus have nothing else to do except to watch kapil sharma show and do politics, or get jealous from some relative.
 
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.

The reason is simple, nukes are worthless as a warfighting weapon. Especially with such small numbers. Only Russia and US use nukes for warfighting.

With the exception of some types of static targets, nukes are quite pointless against disbursed, moving targets. Everything else requires precision conventional weapons.

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?

India's redline is mobilisation. So that ends that. You mobilise, we nuke you first. So why will you mobilise?

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.

There's a huge difference between the two. For Israel, it's a question of their entire existence and culture. For Pakistan, it's not. When it comes to Israel, their enemy is extremely cruel, your enemy is not.

India's main goal is to either get Pakistan to stop terrorism on their own at best or merely the break up Pakistan at worst. We are not out to annihilate every Pakistani, and we do not have the means to do that either.

So, when it comes to Pakistan, anything to do with nukes or a Samson option are merely bluffs.

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.

All that works only on paper. You know what they say: No plan survives contact with the enemy.

As for last year, who knows what would have happened had Abhinandan made it back. The ball was in India's court.

Each time there were reasons to blink. '87 is only Pakistan's conspiracy theory. But in '02 and '08, we blinked because the army was entirely unprepared, nothing more. And let's face it, India's main goal of economic growth is greater than terrorism.

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

Because nukes are pointless for warfighting. You would need dozens of nukes just to defeat a single division.

From the link:
Nuclear Option- Calling the Pakistani Bluff
Imagery analysis of the Nasr missile suggests that its diameter is 30 centimetres (about 12 inches) across and could therefore be able to carry a very compact nuclear warhead comparable to the U.S. W-33 nuclear artillery shell that has a yield varying from less than 1 kiloton to about 10 kilotons. 43 Simulations of a 10-kiloton explosion produced a peak static overpressure of 33.35 psi at 370 meters (about 405 yards). This overpressure only displaced a tank by “about 2.5 meters with acceleration sufficient to inflict moderate damage to external fittings such as track guards, but the tank was able to be driven off and its gun fired after sand and debris had been removed from the barrel,” according to the 1994 study Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability. Incapacitating a tank requires an overpressure of about 45 psi. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] A 1-kiloton explosion at a height of about 150 meters (about 492 feet) results in “overpressures of 45 psi at horizontal distances from ground zero as large as about 170 meters . . . then a 15 kt burst at a height of about 400 m would generate an overpressure of 3 atm up [45 psi] to a distance of about 420 meters, i.e., over an area of 0.55 km.” One 15-kiloton weapon should destroy about 55 tanks, if the tanks are spaced at 100 meters (about 328 feet) apart. (See table 1 for another estimate of the effects on tanks separated by 100 meters.)

If tanks are spaced at 300 meters (or 984 feet) apart, the number of weapons necessary to achieve 55 so-called kills rises from one to eight. By this calculation, destroying a well-dispersed force of 500 tanks would likely require 100 X15-kiloton weapons. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] Although the depth of a tank formation would depend on the relative spacing between each tank, such as “50 meters apart in rows separated by 250 meters (the effective spacing would be 120 meters),” a tank force expecting a nuclear attack would be more dispersed, which would also reduce the immediate radiation effects on the tank crews. Another lower estimate posits that if “tanks were separated by even greater distances, it would require the use of over 80 nuclear weapons of 15 kt yield each to disable or kill the crews in a force of 1000 tanks.” [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] According to a 2001 estimate by Ashley J. Tellis, Pakistan would need “37 weapons of 15 kt (or 57 weapons of 8 kt) to operationally disable an Indian armored division.” [Ashley J. Tellis, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), 133–34.]

And even the PA top brass prefer a comfortable life. Look at it from their perspective. Either die on the field or die in prison. Maybe a hermit's life in some mountain. They have such poor options on the table. Do you actually believe India will not do its best to hunt down every single member of PA's top brass after the war? However a conventional war without the use of nukes will see the PA top brass retiring in peace elsewhere outside South Asia, with some even going on to get some sort of work within Pakistan after the war.

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

That's the point I'm actually making. No one's gonna be throwing "stones" at all.
 
They want to spread Islam

This is a childish argument. Kashmir is 100% geopolitical and has nothing to do with Muslims - or rather muslims are made scapegoats because its the easiest excuse to blurt out. Whoever has Kashmir, gains strategic glacial+high altitude advantage and the bounties that the green valleys offer. Hence, there is no interest in the Thar and Rann of Kutch, inspite of several Muslim dominated settlements along those state borders.
 
This is a childish argument. Kashmir is 100% geopolitical and has nothing to do with Muslims - or rather muslims are made scapegoats because its the easiest excuse to blurt out. Whoever has Kashmir, gains strategic glacial+high altitude advantage and the bounties that the green valleys offer. Hence, there is no interest in the Thar and Rann of Kutch, inspite of several Muslim dominated settlements along those state borders.

1. Those muslims work as informers in Rann some of them are double agents. That's why Pakistan supports that settlements. They wanted Rohingayas in J&K because of the same reason. They exploited the Muslims in Kerala and Lakshadweep. They are exploiting the Muslims of India in West bengal and Assam.

2. But your IB and RAW are not able to tap the same Muslims of your own country and make them speak against Jehadis in Kashmiris.

3. They have a lobby of MPs , senators and lawyers in US, UK, Canada, to ease the Pakistani settlements. They have been working day and night to gather Muslim support for funds. Whole Muslim world funded them to get the Islamic N weapon,

4. And our Babus in RAW, IB etc can only sit in Chairs give orders to lower ranks where on Pakistani counterpart whole military is in field. Naval and Air intelligence. Thanks to third grade IPS.

5. The Pakistanis hand in hand conspired to blame Hindus for Mumbai. Had it not been for a constable who got martyred, you would be called as Hindu atankvadi today. That is the level of planing they do.

6. During Manmohan Singh's times things used to get leak from PMO to Isb, later caught but previously what damage done is unknown. Even if the leak was a deception this got media attention and your plan spoiled.

7. Your people in security apparatus more than 90% are only concerned with the facilities they get at home , whether their biwi is wearing new saree, or they are getting a good posting or they are not missing the Kapil Sharma show in the evening.
 
exploited

You gave the answer... muslims have been allowed to live as 3rd rate citizens/minorities/victims for waaay too long (converted hindus left behind from the Islamization of the subcontinent). They should have been sent out in 1947 itself OR you should have made plans to uplift the community. With the former seemingly impossible - the only option is to break their main nemesis - Immams/Maulvis. Idle minds lead to evil works and unplanned kids. (Also an issue with illiterate Hindus in the cow belt - a whole faction of jobless people who aimlessly carry the saffron flag around)
 
You gave the answer... muslims have been allowed to live as 3rd rate citizens/minorities/victims for waaay too long

Exploited means to use. Not necessarily means to misuse. And this is because Muslims in India want to be useful for Pakistan.
They should have been sent out in 1947 itself OR you should have made plans to uplift the community.

If you uplift muslims they will suppress you in India.
the only option is to break their main nemesis - Immams/Maulvis

That's not possible they are supported by uplifted muslims as well. Like Ghulam Nabi Azad, Omar Abdullah, Hamid Ansari..
Idle minds lead to evil works and unplanned kids.

They want that to happen it's not because they don't have anyother option
Also an issue with illiterate Hindus in the cow belt - a whole faction of jobless people who aimlessly carry the saffron flag aroun

Because Hindus are bunch of idiots who can't see each other successful.

Gurudwara Mazjid every where in India you get free food. Only in our temples especially in North the Pandits loot you.

So Hinduism is already dead. What is left is residue of that. And thats exactly what we see in our security apparatus.

For example IB. There is so much jealousy from eachother and internal politics like anyother department knowing that they have larger responsibility. This is due to the lack of training and weak leadership of IPS


You want India and Hindus to unite. Fix the babus. They are the main cause of trouble in India. Because these babus are themselves Hindus but wont let Hindus unite because then their power will be questioned by general public. And these babus are power thirsty. Be it IPS IAS IFS or IRS.

This is one reason why Modi doesn't like them.
 
Boss, you need to chill. These thoughts and the thread are unrealistic and funny.


This guy is a combination of dhongi baba +babu, unfortunately the only face in the BJP

Every one is chilling only, be it leaders people or the babus. None of them really care about their existence. Be ready to be slaves again.

No one has ability to take decisions can't fight Pakistan can't fight China, Sri Lanka bashes you at diplomacy, Nepal doesn't give a damn about you. Bhutan has introduced expensive entry norm.

Abey salo desh ho ya dhakkan?
 
The reason is simple, nukes are worthless as a warfighting weapon. Especially with such small numbers. Only Russia and US use nukes for warfighting.

With the exception of some types of static targets, nukes are quite pointless against disbursed, moving targets. Everything else requires precision conventional weapons.
"Worthless?" Let me list some potential targets that can be engaged for warfighting:
  • Air/Army/Naval bases
  • C&C nodes
  • SFC facilities
  • Naval vessels (>= FFGs)
Contrary to popular belief, Pakistan's doctrine focuses heavily on battlefield and CF targeting. The inventory may never be enough to engage all potential targets, but the technology, SOPs and therefore the options exist.

Besides, if TNWs were so worthless, Indian SFC would not have deployed them in Rajasthan.

India's redline is mobilisation. So that ends that. You mobilise, we nuke you first. So why will you mobilise?
That is interesting, because this redline has been breached on AT LEAST 3 occasions in the past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that from now on, it is a redline. Then, India has to:
  • identify the level of mobilization for itself (1? 10? 100?)
  • clearly communicate the policy to Pakistan (via overt/covert channels)
  • make sure that Pakistan sticks to its dispersed components policy during peacetime
  • upgrade its ISR capabilities to be able to track the at least the majority of Pakistani inventory
  • be able to differentiate between mock and real convoys/assembly processes
...and here I thought the NFU and massive retaliation policy was stupid.


There's a huge difference between the two. For Israel, it's a question of their entire existence and culture. For Pakistan, it's not. When it comes to Israel, their enemy is extremely cruel, your enemy is not.

India's main goal is to either get Pakistan to stop terrorism on their own at best or merely the break up Pakistan at worst. We are not out to annihilate every Pakistani, and we do not have the means to do that either.

So, when it comes to Pakistan, anything to do with nukes or a Samson option are merely bluffs.
I'm not referring to the motivation behind retaliation. Both the capability and will are there, thats the whole point. Rawat sahb is totally welcome to "call the bluff".


All that works only on paper. You know what they say: No plan survives contact with the enemy.
Wish I could hold up an echo-mirror for you.


As for last year, who knows what would have happened had Abhinandan made it back. The ball was in India's court.

Each time there were reasons to blink. '87 is only Pakistan's conspiracy theory. But in '02 and '08, we blinked because the army was entirely unprepared, nothing more. And let's face it, India's main goal of economic growth is greater than terrorism.
That's the problem (for India), somehow the ball is more or less always in India's court and stays there until the bell rings.

Thats exactly what Pakistan's deterrence strategy hinges on: to always be able to give India a reason to blink.


Because nukes are pointless for warfighting. You would need dozens of nukes just to defeat a single division.

From the link:
Nuclear Option- Calling the Pakistani Bluff
Ah, yes. Of course, the Pakistani deep state, SPD and the people developing these systems have no clue of the ineffectiveness of TNWs against dispersed armored columns on a flat terrain.

Pakistani TNWs are not supposed to directly stop any offensive thrusts, that's the job of the PA. Thats all I can say.


And even the PA top brass prefer a comfortable life. Look at it from their perspective. Either die on the field or die in prison. Maybe a hermit's life in some mountain. They have such poor options on the table. Do you actually believe India will not do its best to hunt down every single member of PA's top brass after the war? However a conventional war without the use of nukes will see the PA top brass retiring in peace elsewhere outside South Asia, with some even going on to get some sort of work within Pakistan after the war.
Literally EVERYONE prefers a comfortable life. No Pakistani military officer WANTS such an eventuality to become true. Its the same for the Americans, Russians, Chinese, French, British, Israelis, Indians, North Koreans...everyone. It is an absolutely misplaced belief that the people responsible for maintaining deterrence (irrespective of their country) will never go through with their plans. That is literally what they train for their entire careers, and what upholds deterrence.

From what I have seen (at home and elsewhere), when it comes to these "scenarios", they have a switch somewhere in their minds which just turns off all thoughts of a "comfortable" life. They willingly accept that they will most likely not see another morning ever again. Luckily for Pakistanis, due to the beliefs, it is a whole lot easier.


That's the point I'm actually making. No one's gonna be throwing "stones" at all.
Not sure how you're making that point, but of course, no stones are better than 200 stones.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: screambowl
Besides, if TNWs were so worthless, Indian SFC would not have deployed them in Rajasthan

And not just that, India would have not invested in BM defence.
That is interesting, because this redline has been breached on AT LEAST 3 occasions in the past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that from now on, it is a redline.

Is there any pact b/w India and Pakistan or any informal understanding on nuclear security that in any case that these points hold the red line and they will not be touched. And if touched the latter holds the right to first strike?
 
And not just that, India would have not invested in BM defence.
Not sure how BMD is relevant to TNWs here, unless you're referring to TNW-specific BMDs. By TNW I mean tactical nuclear weapons, not thermonuclear weapons.

Is there any pact b/w India and Pakistan or any informal understanding on nuclear security that in any case that these points hold the red line and they will not be touched. And if touched the latter holds the right to first strike?
No, there is no pact. But time and again both sides either state or "announce" their red-lines.

For example, India has clearly stated that any nuclear strike against mainland India or against Indian troops anywhere will be responded to with "massive retaliation". Similarly, now and then people who matter, keep hinting that NFU is obsolete, and that India might decide to go first depending on the escalation dynamics.

On the other hand, Pakistan has an ambiguous policy: nothing is clearly stated. While previously Lt. Gen. Kidwai had mentioned four higher-threshold red-lines which were a part of the Minimum Credible Deterrence doctrine, now Pakistan has moved on to what it calls Full-Spectrum Deterrence by introducing TNWs. A widely presumed red-line is now occupation of small slivers of Pakistani territory by Indian forces.
 
Not sure how BMD is relevant to TNWs here, unless you're referring to TNW-specific BMDs. By TNW I mean tactical nuclear weapons, not thermonuclear weapons.

Okay I literally took them as thermonuclear weapons and was wondering they don't have one. But there is a kind of mismatch. Why would Pakistan use TNW when they know the retaliation will be massive? As you said:
For example, India has clearly stated that any nuclear strike against mainland India or against Indian troops anywhere will be responded to with "massive retaliation"

Wouldn't they try to empty all of their arsenal at one go so that India doesn't get the opportunity to retaliate massively?

Similarly, now and then people who matter, keep hinting that NFU is obsolete, and that India might decide to go first depending on the escalation dynamics.

or just like a conventional war there is an escalatory ladder for the Indo Pak nuclear war as well? They launch first strike with their TNW India waits analysis the destruction and retaliates with similar kT.

In that scenario India get's an oppurtunity to move in and capture the towns in Pakistan. Would Pakistan launch TNW on their own city? And we push them to launch SRBMs to be tackled by BMD.
 
That is interesting, because this redline has been breached on AT LEAST 3 occasions in the past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that from now on, it is a redline. Then, India has to:
  • identify the level of mobilization for itself (1? 10? 100?)
  • clearly communicate the policy to Pakistan (via overt/covert channels)
  • make sure that Pakistan sticks to its dispersed components policy during peacetime
  • upgrade its ISR capabilities to be able to track the at least the majority of Pakistani inventory
  • be able to differentiate between mock and real convoys/assembly processes
...and here I thought the NFU and massive retaliation policy was stupid.
Its more contextual. Incase of a full fledged war Pakistan's mobilization of any nuclear weapon will invite a nuclear attack from India. Otherwise you can keep on doing posturing using your weapons and will have no impact. But yes, if it were an open war then all military leadership will think twice about making any un-necessary posturing.
 
Okay I literally took them as thermonuclear weapons and was wondering they don't have one. But there is a kind of mismatch. Why would Pakistan use TNW when they know the retaliation will be massive? As you said:

Wouldn't they try to empty all of their arsenal at one go so that India doesn't get the opportunity to retaliate massively?
Because the Pakistani deep-state believes that the Indian doctrine of "massive retaliation" is flawed (as observed by the people whose voice matters in India as well, e.g. Nagal, Menon). And that when the time comes, the Indian NCA would find it extremely hard to justify a massive strike (which could kill millions) in response to a strike that killed hundreds at best, and that too uniformed personnel on Pakistani soil (for example). Furthermore, it would invite a retaliatory massive strike from land-based second-strike elements of Pakistan. Therefore India needs proportional response options, in order to not be left hanging again.

Pakistan now firmly believes that for this reason, India has unofficially abandoned the massive-strike doctrine. Which is true because during the last couple of years, India has developed and deployed TNWs of its own. The likely reason of not announcing this capability is that it would invite the same criticism on India that Pakistan often gets.

or just like a conventional war there is an escalatory ladder for the Indo Pak nuclear war as well? They launch first strike with their TNW India waits analysis the destruction and retaliates with similar kT.
Yes, precisely. The best option for both countries in such an eventuality would be to escalate gradually, so that de-escalation can be done at any step. To be able to ensure that, both sides need response options of variable yield and quantity. For example, a calibrated and proportional response option to a Pakistani TNW strike on the battlefield could be a retaliatory TNW strike on the missile base to which the Pakistani TNW launch vehicle belongs. And then Pakistani retaliatory strike on the Indian garrison...and so on. In short, as Kidwai said, "quid pro quo Plus".

HOWEVER... NO ONE can predict what will definitely happen. The escalation could spiral out of control right after the first exchange. Its all about who decides to be rational or irrational in the heat of the moment. A good movie to watch on this kind of a topic is "The Sum of All Fears" (although it does not involve proper nuclear exchanges).

In that scenario India get's an oppurtunity to move in and capture the towns in Pakistan. Would Pakistan launch TNW on their own city?
@The Deterrent Will Pakistan use TNWs on its own cities captured by Indian forces.
Yes, thats a probable counter-move against the Full-Spectrum doctrine by India, aimed at making Pakistan blink. Since this would be a very difficult decision to make, I can't say what Pakistan will definitely or likely do. But the only way to ensure and uphold deterrence is to have SOPs, the decision-making will and the declaration to the enemy that yes, Pakistan will do it.

What if the lifeline of Pak the Indus becomes radioactive hellhole cz of use TNWs?
I'd recommend reading up a bit on "clean" air-bursts of NWs. Long story short, air-bursts are not only more destructive, but their fallout is also minimal.
 
"Worthless?" Let me list some potential targets that can be engaged for warfighting:
  • Air/Army/Naval bases
  • C&C nodes
  • SFC facilities
  • Naval vessels (>= FFGs)
Contrary to popular belief, Pakistan's doctrine focuses heavily on battlefield and CF targeting. The inventory may never be enough to engage all potential targets, but the technology, SOPs and therefore the options exist.

Most of those can be killed with conventional weapons more effectively. For example, a bunch of MKIs dropping 40+ SAAWs in a decapitation strike on an airbase.

The only area where nukes are useful is against targets deep underground, which is anyway the domain of strategic nukes. But what I'm referring to is basically against troops.

Besides, if TNWs were so worthless, Indian SFC would not have deployed them in Rajasthan.

All nuclear powers have tactical nukes. But it doesn't mean it's going to be especially useful, especially against the targets I'm specifically talking about.

That is interesting, because this redline has been breached on AT LEAST 3 occasions in the past.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that from now on, it is a redline. Then, India has to:
  • identify the level of mobilization for itself (1? 10? 100?)
  • clearly communicate the policy to Pakistan (via overt/covert channels)
  • make sure that Pakistan sticks to its dispersed components policy during peacetime
  • upgrade its ISR capabilities to be able to track the at least the majority of Pakistani inventory
  • be able to differentiate between mock and real convoys/assembly processes
...and here I thought the NFU and massive retaliation policy was stupid.

There will obviously be certain criterias related to mobilisation.

Our nuclear doctrine specifically states that the threat of use is enough for us to strike first.

I'm not referring to the motivation behind retaliation. Both the capability and will are there, thats the whole point. Rawat sahb is totally welcome to "call the bluff".

Who knows? Maybe he will.

Wish I could hold up an echo-mirror for you.

Exactly why that list you created in your previous post is pointless.

For us, mobilisation is our red line. For you, you can make up all sorts of reasons to create an escalation ladder, but that's pointless.

That's the problem (for India), somehow the ball is more or less always in India's court and stays there until the bell rings.

Isn't it obvious? All terror attacks in India comes from Pakistan, so the onus is on us to escalate. The ball has more or less always been in India's court.

Or you can more specifically say that the conventional war ball is in India's court and the nuclear war ball is in Pakistan's court. Interestingly the IA wants the nuclear war ball to also move to India, with the removal of NFU (perhaps specifcally only for Pakistan).

Thats exactly what Pakistan's deterrence strategy hinges on: to always be able to give India a reason to blink.

Actually, it's all our fault. Nothing to do with Pakistan. Both in '02 and '08, the army was completely unprepared. No artillery, no air defence... Even the infantry was unprepared. The way I see it, Pak's strategy rests on hoping and praying that India doesn't escalate.

The main goal of the armed forces is to achieve overkill against Pakistan before any significant move is made. Whether that has been achieved or not only they know. But you have already seen how aggressive the IA has become over the last few years.

Like this one--
Will take action to reclaim PoK if ordered, says Army Chief General Naravane

Ah, yes. Of course, the Pakistani deep state, SPD and the people developing these systems have no clue of the ineffectiveness of TNWs against dispersed armored columns on a flat terrain.

Pakistani TNWs are not supposed to directly stop any offensive thrusts, that's the job of the PA. Thats all I can say.

It doesn't matter what you plan to use your TNWs for. You can drop it on all the static targets you want, we have more such targets than you have nukes anyway.

It's basically not going to stop an armoured force, is my point. And it looks like we agree on this anyway.

Literally EVERYONE prefers a comfortable life. No Pakistani military officer WANTS such an eventuality to become true. Its the same for the Americans, Russians, Chinese, French, British, Israelis, Indians, North Koreans...everyone. It is an absolutely misplaced belief that the people responsible for maintaining deterrence (irrespective of their country) will never go through with their plans. That is literally what they train for their entire careers, and what upholds deterrence.

From what I have seen (at home and elsewhere), when it comes to these "scenarios", they have a switch somewhere in their minds which just turns off all thoughts of a "comfortable" life. They willingly accept that they will most likely not see another morning ever again. Luckily for Pakistanis, due to the beliefs, it is a whole lot easier.

You are simply talking in general instead of considering the specifics related to Pakistan and the possible treatment of Pakistanis in a post-war world where Pakistan as a single country has likely ceased to exist.

Why did the Iraqis run away instead of fighting the Americans, ask yourself that.

If the PA actually cared about Pakistan itself, then they would have given up their administrative, religious and economic hold over Pakistan a long time ago, allowing Pakistan to become a rich country, and gain the effective means of stopping India conventionally.

Forget nukes, you should be worrying about whether the PA itself will actually fight the IA on the field. Nothing's stopping the top brass from running away to the ME, China and Europe within the small window before the IAF achieves air supremacy.

Not sure how you're making that point, but of course, no stones are better than 200 stones.

I meant Pakistan is never going to use nukes on India, even if Pakistan is nearing annihilation in a conventional war.
And not just that, India would have not invested in BM defence.

Against most TNWs, MRSAM will be effective enough. IA is buying 5 regiments of this SAM.

BMD is for strategic nukes launched by long range missiles that can reach very high altitudes.
 
Because the Pakistani deep-state believes that the Indian doctrine of "massive retaliation" is flawed (as observed by the people whose voice matters in India as well, e.g. Nagal, Menon). And that when the time comes, the Indian NCA would find it extremely hard to justify a massive strike (which could kill millions) in response to a strike that killed hundreds at best, and that too uniformed personnel on Pakistani soil (for example). Furthermore, it would invite a retaliatory massive strike from land-based second-strike elements of Pakistan. Therefore India needs proportional response options, in order to not be left hanging again.
If they are taking this risk, they are taking a massive risk. The enemy who has a declared policy of massive retaliation, the enemy who is working towards a shield against a limited strategic attack and more over an enemy who has NO Tactical nuclear weapons will find itself inclined to do a full scale nuclear attack there by crippling any chance of a counter attack by Pakistan. Essentially this stance of Pakistan hands over India a perfect excuse to nuke Pakistan out of existence. Its a risk which should not be taken.

Problem Pakistan and India face is that after a nuclear strike that kills few hundred soldiers, India will be forced to attack. This attack can only come in form of a strategic nuclear attack. ie India has NO other way but to escalate. Once India escalate, Pakistan WILL escalate. So, only option left with India is to go full scale. An unlikely option will be to NOT retaliate at all, something that is not going to happen because such a leadership will be shot dead by its own people. The fact that India refuses to deploy tactical nuclear weapons ensures that any use of TNW by Pakistan will ensure an escalation. And if it is escalation, India will be forced to go big in the first place due fear of a massive retaliation from Pakistan.