You are selectively quoting him and omitting the context. He made this statement before 2014. His context was that Indian political leadership (of that time) will not be able to retaliate massively in response of few tactical nuclear warheads as it is not rational. What is rational is proportional ladder of escalation based on humanitarian and moral grounds.
Indian leadership since then has changed. You can see them making right but irrational decisions in past few months and even last year. If Pakistan's leadership thinks that they will stick to the old rational thinking of morality, then they are wrong. Given choice of not retaliating at all and retaliating massively they will choose the later.
The reason deterrence works is because it induces fear. A disproportional response is irrational but it is this irrationality that induces fear. This is why he suggests that this policy should be implemented fully. I guess in its implementation there will be processes that will take pre-approval of political leadership on known scenarios and will execute the response without them holding the Indian SFC hostage to "rational choices".
The point of selectively quoting him was that there is an inherent problem with massive disproportionate response. We are not even talking about a conventional disproportionate response as in IAF raids on 3 PAF bases in response to Op Swift Retort. We are talking about a disproportionate response that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
True, the Indian leadership has changed. But it has not yet displayed the level of irrationality that would induce fear. A response to Op Swift Retort was the best chance India had of displaying that.
I totally agree with you on how deterrence works or how a massive disproportionate response could deter Pakistan. The problem is that the sheer scale of the massive disproportionate response makes Pakistan believe that the Indian leadership does not have what it takes to implement it. Furthermore, one of the most important aspect of deterrence is communicating the repercussions to the enemy, effectively. If thats not done, the enemy will not be deterred, even though you have both the capability and will to eliminate the enemy. So far, it has not been effectively communicated to Pakistan (through actions) that the cost of a Pakistani TNW strike will be unthinkable.
During WW2, countries have lost much more than that. Germany lost 10%, Russia lost 20%.
You have a very weird opinion about nukes and population destruction, something that even Pakistani officials and veterans peddle in the media. Even the most optimistic predictions of damage to India is only a few 10s of millions, considerably less than 5% of the population.
You speak of dropping nukes on our air bases and C&C, even frigates in one line, even if we have more such targets than you have nukes. And then suddenly all nukes are now falling on cities in the next line. That logic completely evades me. I find it funny how Pakistan thinks itself to have more nukes than the Americans.
Sure, but Europeans and Russians are first world nations, which have built everything for themselves. Can India/Pakistan do the same?
Also, WW2 spanned a couples of years, which helped sustain the damage throughout those years. Is a similar loss of population/assets over a few days/weeks comparable to WW2?
You can put the number of nukes in any equation you want, that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Pakistan has those options (i.e. counter-force and counter-value). The capability and will to implement these options upholds Pakistani deterrence, not an equation that says Pakistan does not have enough nukes.
It doesn't really matter which way it goes. Even if Pak goes all-out with nukes, it won't destroy India. Forget destroying an India that exists today, never mind the one 5 or 10 years from now. Only you guys believe in MAD and what not. There is no MAD in the India-Pak context.
So why will PA use nukes on an enemy that will obviously only have a short term impact versus bringing complete destruction of the PA in exchange?
Like I said, you have too much optimism. But of course, you're welcome to have your own beliefs.
That's actually what I acknowledged, that India's escalation point went all the way to crossing the IB. Both Vstol and Falcon confirmed the same on this forum.
There was nothing special with what Pak did post-Balakot. Hell, our response to begin a full scale war is now less than 24 hours, cut down from the 3 weeks in 2002.
Merely having escalation strategies and implementing them are different things, no? You can downplay the Pakistani response all you want, at the end of the day, India did not implement its escalation response, Pakistan did.
Funny that you are basing this on just rumours that India has actually "operationally" deployed tactical nukes.
Tactical nukes, India has had it for decades. Deployment of tactical nukes, India is yet to do it. Even if it is done, it will be in order to assist the army's offensive "after" strategic nukes have been launched and all the damage has already been done, and not as part of a silly game dealing with escalation that only favours Pakistan. If we also want to play this silly game of escalation, then our doctrine wouldn't have NFU in the first place.
When we have complete conventional superiority, it makes sense that we maintain a policy of massive retribution in reponse.
If you know me at all, you'd know that I'm usually the last person to believe rumors unless there is solid evidence backing them up. In this case, there is. You are more than welcome to ask a trusted uniformed/retired SFC member about this, I can only hope that he gives you an answer. Unfortunately, I can't share the evidence with you at this time.
Again, you are free to have your own beliefs. I'd rather trust the statements of ex-SFC and the actual physical developments on the ground.
So if India retaliates massively with TNW, what is the probability that India will succeed in breaking their chain of command? And they won't be able to launch another nuclear strike
IF India retaliates massively with TNWs (tactical or thermo? doesn't matter in this case I guess), the probability of breaking the chain of command is high.
Is it? Who is taking anything coming from 'land of pure' seriously? The credibility of the state has dramatically reduced to just a pawn in the game. This is when you possess nuclear tech. Almost everyone considers pakistan as either nuisance or balancing stud.
By 'works' you mean there is no nuclear war then obviously

duh... Today, you cant freely wage nonconventional attacks on Indian soil. Every three month you are on a scale by the international community on terror financing. Today, you can't expect Muslim ummah to treat you special because you have the bomb.
I assumed you were referring to the doctrine of nuclear brinkmanship, and replied that it works.
Let's explore this a bit further
"PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its deterrence strategies and doctrines." So Pakistan's deterrence strategy like "Security of the East lies in the West" a proclaimed military doctrine across it's inception to its demise was not based on its the influence of the power center? West Pakistani military administration, as exclusivist it was in its power structure literally created a military doctrine to keep the Bengalis out of the military administration. Then there were other brilliant strategies like "death by thousand cuts" which has paid off so well for Pakistan?
Now about the overlap, let's look at very simple situations. As soon as political leadership in Pakistan ingresses into the domain that challenges the Military's strategic lynch pin: i.e Indian Boogeyman, That leadership has to bid goodbye; either in a bodybag or in a Private Jet. Multiple examples that don't need rehashing.
My post was a response to yours where you literally were perplexed why the Idea that Pakistan will never use it's Nukes against India is promulgated.
My response was just an attempt to showcase that the conduct of Pakistani military shows it's Self Preservation kicks in before it's Strategic Doctrine in every major conflict vis-a-vis India. My counter purely being Pakistan Military's end goal is its Domination of the Powerstructure in the state, and will sacrifice it's doctrine's if needed to protect itself from collapse.
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.