Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, develop and deploy

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
The use of nuke is just that. It opens you up for a retaliatory strike and it can be anything. Would pakistan risk Karachi to halt a tank formation?
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
Pakistan has no technology to make tactical nukes. India does and it can make them if required.
If their are indications of pakistan making tactical nukes, India will do so as well. So no question of India being in a bind.

China has NFU so it can be assumed they will not use tactical nukes.
how can u say that pak`s doesnt have any technology .any source?any india has technology for it?plus if china has then automatically pak has:twizt:
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,785
Likes
48,227
Country flag
"Yes, Pakistan Has Tactical Nukes"

how can u say that pak`s doesnt have any technology .any source?any india has technology for it?plus if china has then automatically pak has:twizt:
www.outlookindia.com | "Yes, Pakistan Has Tactical Nukes"


"Yes, Pakistan Has Tactical Nukes"

Lt Gen D.B. Shekatkar, former additional director-general, military operations, and additional director-general, perspective planning (covering among other things nuclear doctrine and planning), retired from the army on March 31 this year. In addition to the two postings, he has also been a divisional commander in Kashmir, a corps commander in the northeast and commandant of the prestigious Infantry School. Excerpts from an interview to Outlook:

The army top brass is worried about Pakistan threatening to use a nuclear weapon and say this should not be treated casually. What is your perception?
I agree that the repeated assertions by the Pakistanis on this count should not be taken lightly.

Does Pakistan possess a tactical nuclear weapon?
Yes, it does and we should be ready to counter it.

Is Pakistan capable of using a tactical nuclear weapon?
Yes, it is. In the army, when we deal with the nuclear aspect and future planning, we have always taken the tactical nuclear weapon factor into account when dealing with Pakistan.

There is this theory among various nuclear analysts that Pakistan does not possess the technology to miniaturise a nuclear weapon, leave alone having a weapons delivery system...
With due respect, there is vast difference between academic research and ground realities. The series of missiles supplied to Pakistan by China and North Korea are capable of carrying a tactical nuclear weapon. China also has the technology to miniaturise.

So should the threat of a tactical nuclear strike by Pakistan inhibit our strategy?
It should not. At the same time, we should play our cards in such a way that Pakistan does not become desperate enough to use a tactical nuclear weapon. In any war, it is important to leave the enemy with some room for manoeuvre. Of course, we should send a clear signal to Pakistan that we can punish them with our second strike just in case it dares to use the nuclear option. Also, how would the Pakistanis ensure that their own troops and areas are not affected by the same tactical nuclear strike, given the proximity of the areas and the people?

So what is our best option in the current stand-off?
We have a legitimate right to strike the terrorist camps across the LoC and I believe that we should exercise that right as the first option. But should the enemy escalate the battle, our forces are equal to the challenge. However, as I have said earlier, our immediate challenge is to prevent an all-out war.

note this is an Indian military higher up saying this and how many years ago.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,779
Likes
2,666
Country flag
There are three massive problems with tactical nukes

1) They are dispersed with operational control to the man on the front, this is dangerous. Miscalculation or misinformation by one man could lead to massive destruction and then retaliation by the enemy.

2)ICBM's can be self-destructed in -flight,aircraft can be recalled but an artillery shell once fired can not. if you fire one there's no turning back no way to undo what has been done.

3)the potential that any conventional SRBM launch or artillery strike could be misread as a tactical nuke strike, leading to retaliation.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Woh!! A dead thread pulled out BR!!
The Col surely gets pissed at the mention of tacs.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,779
Likes
2,666
Country flag
Woh!! A dead thread pulled out BR!!
The Col surely gets pissed at the mention of tacs.
and rightly so Tactical nukes are dangerous, unpredictable and generally suicidal for the force firing them as well, the wind might shift at any time bringing the radiation from your bomb to you.the whole point of a nuclear bomb is to be able to destroy the enemy with little or no risk to yourself, this purpose is defeated in tactical nukes.Imagine forgetting where you have planted a nuclear land mine to have your own tanks getting blown up by it.Better yet ,imagine a greenhorn lieutenant from west point getting command of one or two of the weapons below.

the whopper from the world of stupid tactical nuclear weapons the davy crockett
Nuclear bazooka


The M-388 Davy Crockett was a tactical nuclear recoilless rifle projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. It was named after American soldier, Congressman and folk hero Davy Crockett (1786-1836).

One of the smallest nuclear weapons ever built, the Davy Crockett was developed in the late 1950s for use against Soviet troops had war broken out in Europe. Small teams of the Atomic Battle Group (charged with operating the device) would be stationed every few kilometers to guard against Soviet attack, using the power of their nuclear artillery to kill or incapacitate advancing troop formations and irradiate the area so that it was uninhabitable for up to 48 hours, long enough to mobilize NATO forces.
The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield equivalent to 10 or 20 tons of TNT (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead). The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was actually inserted into the launcher's barrel for firing.[1]
The Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (102 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew.[2]


A Davy Crockett casing preserved in the United States Army Ordnance Museum
Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).[3]
The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the Little Feller II weapons effects test shot, and again in an actual firing of the Davy Crockett from distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 km) in the Little Feller I test shot on July 17. This was the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.
Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956, with a total of 2,100 being made. The weapon was deployed with U.S. Army forces from 1961 to 1971.
Versions of the W54 warhead were also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition project and the AIM-26A Falcon.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,785
Likes
48,227
Country flag
Tactical nukes maybe out of the military doctrines for the more professional militaries, but for a jihadi rogue nation like pakistan they would be welcomed for use by the army to force a stalemate or given to their jihadi buddies to use.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Right mate, but we still have members who support the use of tacs which is self defeating. Even after getting reasons why they are not good from the Col.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,779
Likes
2,666
Country flag
Tactical nukes maybe out of the military doctrines for the more professional militaries, but for a jihadi rogue nation like pakistan they would be welcomed for use by the army to force a stalemate or given to their jihadi buddies to use.
What if the jihadi buddy gives the TAC-nuke to the TTP?or uses it himself on the Marriott in Islamabad.I do not believe the Pakistani military is that stupid.

anyways the jihadis need to learn Chinese to be able to understand the instruction manual first:D:D:D
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Tactical nukes maybe out of the military doctrines for the more professional militaries, but for a jihadi rogue nation like pakistan they would be welcomed for use by the army to force a stalemate or given to their jihadi buddies to use.
Tactical nukes cannot force a stalemate. Like I said before, it will lead to a massive retaliation from India if Pak uses it in the form of strategic nukes. As far as the sub continent goes, it just doesn't make sense to use them. If you are going nuclear, then it just has to be the big bad ones, not a tank killer.
 

power_monger

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

tactical nuclear response is suicadal.If pak resorts to tactical weapons,India will respons with full scale nuke attack.I guess india will also not use tactical nukes for same reason. Its simply foolish to do so especially when opponent has nukes in his arsenal.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

India has moved away from small nuclear weapons due to its doctrine of no first use. It makes no sense to use small nukes in retaliation. Indian warheads are only thermonuclear or boosted fission.

Indian strategy is retaliation, not winning wars.

If Pakistan is emulating USA in nuke development, then Pakistan is on a very wrong course. Pakistan can use tactical nukes but the result will be a strategic response from India.
 

Agustya

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
69
Likes
26
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

Are you saying all nuclear weapons in India's arsenal is meant for counter-value and not counter-force targets?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

India has moved away from small nuclear weapons due to its doctrine of no first use. It makes no sense to use small nukes in retaliation. Indian warheads are only thermonuclear or boosted fission.
Indian has all types of nukes, from Thermo nuke to tactical sub kiloton nukes. These were tested in nuke tests.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

Indian has all types of nukes, from Thermo nuke to tactical sub kiloton nukes. These were tested in nuke tests.
Tested yes, but Indian doctrine does not support deployment of small nukes.

The situation has changed since 1998.

When you say "all type of nukes", you should focus on what is deployed. There is enough information in open source that indicates (but does not clearly tell) what is deployed.

My information is quite decent in this regards.
 

Bheeshma

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
916
Likes
384
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

Not sure why you think sub kilo-ton nukes are not deployed? Yes they are. Are you saying they are not mated with Brahmos?
 

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,569
Likes
15,303
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

The power of nuclear weapons in a defensive role IE using it on your territory to stop an army is overstated . I recall that there were NATO studies than concluded that it would take 400 tactical nukes to destroy a single division .
A single tactical nuke (upto 15KT) kills infantry within 700 meters . While NBC protected vehicles survive 300meters away .
Besides where will Pakistan drop its nukes ? Incase they didn't realise nuking an advancing Indian army poisons their primary water sources . The water that 80% of Pakistan drinks will be irradiated .
And if they nuke indian territory they get a full retaliation in any case . In my opinion tactical nukes are a waste of money and im sure that the average Pakistani does not want to eat more grass .
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

point # ( 1)

tactical nuclear response is suicadal.If pak resorts to tactical weapons,India will respons with full scale nuke attack.I guess india will also not use tactical nukes for same reason. Its simply foolish to do so especially when opponent has nukes in his arsenal.
India has moved away from small nuclear weapons due to its doctrine of no first use. It makes no sense to use small nukes in retaliation. Indian warheads are only thermonuclear or boosted fission.

Indian strategy is retaliation, not winning wars.

If Pakistan is emulating USA in nuke development, then Pakistan is on a very wrong course. Pakistan can use tactical nukes but the result will be a strategic response from India.
The power of nuclear weapons in a defensive role IE using it on your territory to stop an army is overstated . I recall that there were NATO studies than concluded that it would take 400 tactical nukes to destroy a single division .
A single tactical nuke (upto 15KT) kills infantry within 700 meters . While NBC protected vehicles survive 300meters away .
Besides where will Pakistan drop its nukes ? Incase they didn't realise nuking an advancing Indian army poisons their primary water sources . The water that 80% of Pakistan drinks will be irradiated .
And if they nuke indian territory they get a full retaliation in any case . In my opinion tactical nukes are a waste of money and im sure that the average Pakistani does not want to eat more grass .
many of you are saying the same thing that pak short-range tactical nukes is basically
a strategy of nuking themselves - i agree

their military planners must surely know that .
So why are they continuing to manufacture more ? - for export ?
for passing to others to use against Israel ?
I think it may be use for conflicts outside of the India-pak boundary areas including
but certainly not restricted to naval application as well .


point # (2)
Indian has all types of nukes, from Thermo nuke to tactical sub kiloton nukes. These were tested in nuke tests.
most grateful your help in understanding
thermonuclear does not equal megaton bomb ? . i tried looking up on Google but i must
admit it was "tiring " :frusty:
as far as i remember India has not so far tested any megaton device . and in your and other's opinions
is it necessary for India to test a megaton device - does it give us any advantage or status
or will it only bring retaliatory actions like sanctions etc.
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,299
Country flag
Re: Tactical nuclear weapons in South Asia: the need to disavow, deve

Not sure why you think sub kilo-ton nukes are not deployed? Yes they are. Are you saying they are not mated with Brahmos?
No, they are not!
Because:
1. India doesn't need tactical nuclear weapons: Indian army has enough confidence to stop any conventional attack from Pakistan!
2. India didn't develop its war art based on tactical nuclear weapons--you need more than hundreds times of nuclear test to perfect that. There are only 3 countries managed to do it: USA, USSR and French.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top