Our response should be complete annihilation of all military installation of enemy and also on water sources.A nuclear strike on the frontline indian territory , installation or the armed corps what and how should india deal with it , let your views it be elaborate
He is talking about details. If we face for example a nuclear strike near Indo-pak border where our troops concentration is heavy then we will lose several thousands of troops and infrastructure. Of course India will respond but how it will manage that strike if we fail to deter that nuclear strike and we see another mushroom on our troops?Our response should be complete annihilation of all military installation of enemy and also on water sources.
That will be enough for their slow and painful death eventually.
Removes an excuse the attackers could use to nuke us!!What is the benefit of no first use?
The fear of a second strike will in most cases prevent a first strike in most cases, if this does not work and people are killed in a first strike we will be left with no choice but to annihilate the opposing country!!Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?
It's mainly a diplomatic ploy to develop better relations with neighbors, by building confidence in the fact that India will not use nuclear weapons on a whim.What is the benefit of no first use?
Well, this is one of the reasons why India is investing heavily in an ABM shield. This will greatly reduce the chance of a successful Pakistani first strike.Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?
India doesnt have an invasion policy and that too of a nuclear attack. No way. No matters anything happens but India will not nuke any nation first and I support this policy because after the war, atleast no one can point a finger on us for our act.What is the benefit of no first use? Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?
Pakistan yes, We have thermo nukes, they are not tactical.Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals that consist almost entirely of tactical weapons.
Amit NFU is basically to show our enemy that we have enough capability to absorb their first strike and counter attack them which will have unacceptable damage to their military, its installations, economic centers and large part of their ubran area.What is the benefit of no first use? Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?
Pakistani nukes are tactical in the sense that they are intended to be used against Indian military forces on Pakistani soil. Using nuclear weapons on their own soil will (supposedly) shift world opinion towards Pakistan, because it will give the impression of Pakistan resorting to nuclear force only to stop 'Indian aggression'.There is nothing called tactical nukes in the inventory of both india and Pakistan. Both have nukes to be used for strategic gains. The one that strikes first would have lost the war already that it made it use nukes.
Pak doctrine does not say their nukes will be used on advancing indian soldiers. They are very clear about lobbing nukes on delhi, mumbai etc.Pakistani nukes are tactical in the sense that they are intended to be used against Indian military forces on Pakistani soil. Using nuclear weapons on their own soil will (supposedly) shift world opinion towards Pakistan, because it will give the impression of Pakistan resorting to nuclear force only to stop 'Indian aggression'.
Of course, this will happen only if Indian forces have made enormous gains against Pakistani conventional forces, as you have mentioned.
I can see them going for a two prong attack in such a scenario- Nuclear tipped cruise missiles Babur and Ra'ad against the invading Indian ground forces and nuclear armed ballistic missiles Ghauri and Shaheen targeted at key politico-economic centres in India.Pak doctrine does not say their nukes will be used on advancing indian soldiers. They are very clear about lobbing nukes on delhi, mumbai etc.
We should (any other country would do) but I doubt our govt would take such a decision.now let us assume a we shoot down a nuclear tipped ballistic missile or a fighter containing nukes ,will we still still retaliate?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction | Science and Technology | 1 | ||
World Reaction to the Pakistani Nuclear Tests | Military History | 1 | ||
World Reaction to the Indian Nuclear Tests | Military History | 34 | ||
A chain reaction of nuclear proliferation | Strategic Forces | 0 |