Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
India's stated nuclear doctrine is that it's "deterrent" is a no first use and for inflicting unacceptable damage in retaliatory strikes.

I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

Pakistans doctrine calls for use of nuclear weapons when
1) it looses a major chunk of its territory.
2) it looses a major chunk of its armed forces
3) there is severe economic and political hardship caused by ways of blockade.

Consider an all out war between India and Pakistan. Considering the above, it's most likely to use nuclear weapons when Indian armed forces capture cities like Lahore, destroy a major portion of the Pakistani fighting force.

In this scenario, pakistan has lost already lost the war and our troops are already in control of a lot of Pakistani territory. We cannot nuke our own forces.

In the scenario that Paksitan goes in for a first strike without any provocation or way below its threshold, India should still not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

India should come out with political and military goals for the next war which is likely to happen in the future.

Political goals.

India has to dismember Pakistan. We know of Sindh, Baloch, Pakhtun and Balwaristan movements.

If Pakistan has already gone nuclear and say destroyed Delhi and mumbai, it gives Indian forces free license to use disproportionate fire power to subdue, kill any opposition that comes in its way and together with local sympathetic forces, help them break away from the current republic of Pakistan as it stands. It should install regimes inimical to it and act as guarantor of future security. This means cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there. Again any opposition can be brutally suppressed as we have already suffered population losses due to Paki strike.

Military Objective.

Complete destruction of Paksitans war fighting capabilities. We capture/destroy their air assets and naval assets. With the break up of Sindh and Balocbistan, these assets can be provided to the new states under Indian protection.

There is the china factor in all this India clearly has to use the nuclear first strike threat against china for any interference and since we have already suffered a nuclear strike, it will not be prudent for china to interfere as it will have more to lose than India.

India retaliating in a "glass making" contest in a tit for tat attack will not help long term goals. We can kill those against us with guns and with all the brutality without bothering about human rights as we have already suffered population losses.

An Indian response to Paki nuke attack really does not have to be nuclear.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
to pak, if you ever use nuke against us or our forces, then make sure that you will use all the nukes in one go, or else there wont be much left of Pak, at least we can do is to wipe it off the world map.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
Your assumption is wrong, India's doctrine has changed:

Did India Change its Nuclear Doctrine?: Much Ado about Nothing | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

A recent concern has broken out amongst some analysts that India has shifted its nuclear doctrine away from no first use. The publicly released summary of India's 2003 official nuclear doctrine pledged "no first use" of nuclear weapons and an additional negative security assurance of "non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states."1 On 21 October 2010, India's National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, gave a speech to the National Defence College in which the text employs the formulation that India's nuclear doctrine emphasizes "no first use against non-nuclear weapons states."2
So no first strike is not an option against pakistan, and second you are assuming pakistan as normal state, no it is not, the moment they feel they are loosing the way they will unload there full nuclear arsenal on us. And what if they nuke our forces?

Ideally we should change our nuclear doctrine to state that if pakis send any nuke towards us, we will strike back at the source of the paki nukes. That will constrain them a lot :)
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
If you guys understand the whole point, what's the aim of India? To finish the paki threat itself. Even after nuking them, regardless of what we say, they won't be wiped off the face of the earth as we don't have that many warheads.

We create 4 different states. Balochistan, Sindh, Pakhtun and Pakjab with Gilgit Baltistan back in our sovereignty.

Baloch, Sindh and Pakhtun land will be independent and PakJab at our mercy.

We completely disarm them and humiliate them that they forget the word "ghairat" forever.
 

devgupt

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
581
Likes
296
Country flag
This means cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there.
Karachi with a majority Muhajir population will not be India friendly.And we will not be creating Jinnahpur.
Taking out Karachi in response to a nuclear attack on India or its forces would ensure that Rest of Sindh remains Sindhi which has better chance of becoming India friendly.
US nuked Hiroshima,Nagasaki - Japan has behaved since and bow to US.

If Delhi, Mumbai are destroyed, whole Pakjab, Peshwar and Karachi should be annihilated.World should remember the ferociousness of Indian response - this will be a powerful incentive for the defeated people to then accept Indian domination
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
We create 4 different states. Balochistan, Sindh, Pakhtun and Pakjab with Gilgit Baltistan back in our sovereignty.
We don't have to create it.

It will happen on its own and in your lifetime.

They are good at destroying everything that is there for them to enjoy.

Why do we have to nuke them?
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
I agree with Yusuf. But, if Pakis use nukes, then a lot of innocent Indians would die. So, if we have to go for a full scale war, it's imperative that we destroy the sources of their nukes and force Pakistan to surrender to conventional war. This would require a tremendous amount of HUMINT and ELINT capabilities on part of IA agencies, which I'm not so sure now. Then we can implement The Yusuf Doctrine.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
I agree with Yusuf. But, if Pakis use nukes, then a lot of innocent Indians would die. So, if we have to go for a full scale war, it's imperative that we destroy the sources of their nukes and force Pakistan to surrender to conventional war. This would require a tremendous amount of HUMINT and ELINT capabilities on part of IA agencies, which I'm not so sure now. Then we can implement The Yusuf Doctrine.
Hahaha. Yusuf's Doctrine.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,589
Yusuf, there was another thread on this somewhere...

And then again Yusuf, Pak destroys our political and financial capital and we dont have a retaliatory nuclear strike? Do you think the people of this nation will tolerate what you are suggesting?
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,507
Likes
22,493
Country flag
Good point raised Yusuf !

In any case it wouldn't be easy for Indian armed forces to enter into any big Pakistani city, as the Pakistani cities are heavily crowded and people there are no less than Islamic militant groups, you see even it was not easy for US armed forces in Iraq to enter and fight inside the Iraqi cities.

So we'll have to blow their nuke sites and nuke delivery/launching systems meanwhile trying to exhaust Pakistani military power.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
If Pakistan destroys Delhi and Mumbai then we've already lost.
The consequences of the nuclear strike are frightening. Times 10 of that on hiroshima and nagasaki.

Probably if India wouldn't have turned nuclear, we would have had a better chance at per-empting a war with pak
 

one

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
114
Likes
52
Our doctrine should state any nuclear attack on india by pak should include attack by chine and they should be punished as well. Cause they are the main culprit in giving pakis to contain us.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
'Yusuf's Doctrine' doesn't make sense at all. Pakistan will not stop with a limited destruction of two cities. Once the mushrooms cloud goes up then it's all over, it'll be a bloody free for all.

If Pakistan launches nukes, then they'll target ALL important Indian installations (both civilian and military)

All these "smaller states" won't be at our mercy, we'd be hard pressed to ensure that we survive as a cohesive nation. A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would destroy the Indian subcontinent
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
The genie escaped long back from the bottle.And Pakistan is not the reason we went nuclear
The reason we went nuclear, I presume is to have be at a greater stage globally. The rest of the recognized nuclear powers went for the no first use policy.
And because India was let off easily, others have started testing and developing it too.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
LB, India is big, huge actually. We can limit destruction if we go by my post earlier in the thread. Then implement Yusuf's Doctrine.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top