Battlefield Nukes: Pakistan's Nasr Myth!

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Mikesingh, May 10, 2016.

  1. Mikesingh

    Mikesingh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Pakistanis have been falling over each other extolling the virtues of its 'tactical' or battlefield nuclear weapon - Nasr. But all that hype in nothing but pure rubbish. Let's analyze one probable scenario and check out their efficacy in a nuclear environment. Here I am not touching upon the effects of a massive Indian nuclear retaliation but only whether their Nasrs would be effective in the event of an Indian attack across a broad front deep into Pakistan territory.

    So here's the math to put at rest Pakistani jingoism........


    For a max 5kt warhead (max 5kt warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 kt)

    – Blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km

    Integrated Battle Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.

    How many nukes would be required to neutralize one CG? - 25.

    Initial strike with 10 -15 integrated battle groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.

    Minimum battlefield nukes needed to neutralize the CGs > 250 Nasrs!

    That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! How many do they have? And remember, all tanks and armored personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.

    So, going a step further, 250x5 kt =1250 kt ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!)

    What would be left of Eastern Pakistan?

    The world nuclear powers have discarded their doctrine of using tactical nukes due to their inherent disadvantages, the most important one being the threat of an all out counter-value response from the enemy. It would be impossible to restrict it to a limited counter-force nuclear exchange in a limited theater of operations.

    It's beyond comprehension why Pak generals, who are not known for strategic thinking anyway, assume that the Nasr is the best weapon to thwart an Indian offensive! It seems that these Paki generals haven't factored in massive Indian counter-value retaliation as well as the minimal effect the Nasrs would have on the fast advancing integrated battle groups as targeting them on the move will not be a cinch!
     
    raja696 and aditya g like this.
  2.  
  3. aditya g

    aditya g Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    818
    Location:
    India
    There is minimal intellectual discourse in Pakistan to debate this. The pak army does what it wants without reproach.

     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Everything comes later. First of all let them make a miniature nuke that fits in that 30cm dia Nasr


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Illusive, raja696 and Indx TechStyle like this.
  5. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Say your video on Net between could not here whats question where begin put to oldies
     
  6. aditya g

    aditya g Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    818
    Location:
    India
    I don't think they have it. Many dont think they have reliable missiles. North korean nuke was an eaethquake. But for the purpose of deterrence this is not so relevant. Deterrence is a function of perception as nobody really knows the truth.

     
  7. aliyah

    aliyah Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    302
    didnt understand anything but felt good :)
     
    Mikesingh likes this.

Share This Page