Win Pak - India Nuke war ?

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Capricorn, Oct 31, 2015.

  1. Capricorn

    Capricorn Regular Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    Likes Received:

    THAT Pakistan may first use nuclear weapons in a future war with India was announced last week by Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry. Coming just two days before Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Oct 22 visit to Washington, this could be considered a reiteration of the army’s well-known stance. But, significantly it came from the Foreign Office rather than GHQ or Strategic Plans Division. Coming from both ends of the power spectrum, this confirms that Pakistan has drastically shifted its nuclear posture.

    In the late 1980s, Pakistan had viewed nuclear weapons very differently; they were the last-ditch means to deter a possible nuclear attack by India. But Pakistan now says it intends to use low-yield nuclear bombs, also called tactical nuclear weapons, to forestall the possible advance of Indian troops into Pakistan under India’s ‘Cold Start’ operational doctrine.

    Floated by Gen Deepak Kapoor in 2010, Cold Start calls for cutting Pakistan into “salami slices” as punishment for hosting yet another Mumbai-style terrorist attack inside India. It assumes that this limited action would not provoke a nuclear exchange. India strenuously denies that such a doctrine is official or that it has been made operational.

    This denial cut no ice across the border. In 2011 a successful test of the Nasr “shoot and scoot” short-ranged missile was announced by ISPR, the Pakistan military’s official voice. Ensconced inside a multiple-barrelled mobile launcher the four 60-kilometre-range missiles are said to be tipped with nuclear warheads each roughly one-tenth the size of a Hiroshima-sized weapon. Pakistan says these tactical weapons will not destabilise the current balance or pose significant command and control problems, a claim that many believe as incorrect.

    At the end both India and Pakistan would win, having taught the other a terrible lesson.
    Pakistan is not the first country tempted by nuclear force multipliers. Nor, as claimed by ISPR, is making small warheads a significant technical feat. In fact in the 1950s the Americans had developed even smaller ones with sub-kiloton yields, and placed them on the Davy Crockett recoilless guns deployed at forward positions along the Turkey-USSR border. The nuclear shell, with a blast yield that would be dialled as required, could be fired by just two infantrymen. This was a tempting alternative to artillery but the Americans were eventually unnerved by the prospect of two soldiers setting off a nuclear war on their own initiative. The weapon was withdrawn and decommissioned after a few years.

    Wars are fought to be won, not to be lost. So how will Pakistan’s new weapons help us win a war? This fundamental question is never even touched. But let us assume their use in a post Mumbai-II scenario. For every (small) mushroom cloud on Pakistani territory, roughly a dozen or more Indian main battle tanks and armoured vehicles would be destroyed. After many mushrooms, the invasion would stop dead in its tracks and a few thousand Indian troops would be killed. Pakistan would decisively win a battle.

    But then what? With the nuclear threshold crossed for the first time since 1945, India would face one of two options: to fight on or flee. Which it will choose is impossible to predict because much will depend upon the extant political and military circumstances, as well as the personalities of the military and political leaders then in office.

    Official Indian policy calls for massive retaliation. In 2013, reacting officially to Pakistan, Shyam Saran, the head of the National Security Advisory Board (the apex body concerned with security matters) declared that, “India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but if it is attacked with such weapons, it would engage in nuclear retaliation which will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage on its adversary. The label on a nuclear weapon used for attacking India, strategic or tactical, is irrelevant from the Indian perspective”.

    Simply stated: whether struck by a micro-nuke or mini-nuke or city-buster, and whether on its own soil or outside its borders, India says it will consider itself under nuclear attack and react accordingly.

    This is plain stupid. It violates the principle of proportionate retaliation and pushes aside the barriers to hell. But could the NSAB be bluffing? It may be that if push comes to shove, India will not actually launch its large nuclear weapons. The sensible instinct of self-preservation might somehow prevail, and the subcontinent live to see another morning.

    More likely is that in the heat of the moment, reckless passions will rage and caution will take a backseat. A tit-for-tat exchange could continue until every single weapon, small and large, is used up on either side. It is difficult to imagine how any war termination mechanism could work even if, by some miracle, the nuclear command and control centres remain intact. At the end both India and Pakistan would win, having taught the other a terrible lesson. But neither would remain habitable.

    The subcontinent’s military and political leaders are not the first to believe that a nuclear war can remain limited, and perhaps even won. President Reagan puzzled over the possibility of Armageddon, uncertain whether or not God was commanding him to destroy earth or to leave it in His hands. Allen Dulles, the first CIA director, had repeatedly railed against the stupidity of those Americans, “who draw an ‘artificial’ distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and cannot realise that atomic bombs should be treated like bullets”.

    Tactical nukes will not make Pakistan more secure. This dangerous programme should be immediately abandoned. Nukes may win a battle for us but at the cost of losing Pakistan. Instead our security lies in ensuring that Pakistan’s territory is not used for launching terror attacks upon our neighbours. We must explicitly renounce the use of covert war to liberate Kashmir — a fact hidden from none and recently admitted to by Gen Musharraf.

    As for India: your security depends upon adopting a less belligerent attitude towards Pakistan, stopping a menacing military build-up that is spooking all your neighbours, and realising that respect is earned through economic rather than military strength.

    These are tall orders for both countries. Any optimism is currently unwarranted.

    The writer teaches physics in Islamabad and Lahore.

    Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2015
    Illusive, raja696 and Dushyant like this.
  3. Dushyant

    Dushyant New Member

    Oct 2, 2015
    Likes Received:
    Writer might be Pervez Hoodbouy!!
  4. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Feb 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Pakistan stop thinking after they launch nukes at us. What happens after that is not in there control.
    saty likes this.
  5. thethinker

    thethinker Senior Member Senior Member

    Dec 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    That's one stupid and hypocritical Paki. Can't even frame a proper threat. :lol:

    The concept of soft power and growth of Indian economy YoY seems to be lost on this one. What burns Pervez Hoodboy's ass is that India is now retaliating very strongly to Paki pinpricks on LC.

    Meanwhile, India exercises soft power across the globe in cultural as well as intellectual spheres. Pakis on other hand across the globe can only speak about nukes, Kashmir, Palestine and solidarity of ummah.

    Here's one recent article where one Paki writer was amazed at the soft power India possesses.

    The India brand
    Huma Yusuf — Published Oct 26, 2015 01:18am

    One can only marvel at the display of our neighbour’s soft power.

    Pakistan’s fashion designers will also be disappointed to learn that they do not merit even a passing glance in a gallery celebrating contemporary Indian fashion. The likes of Manish Arora, Rahul Mishra and Abu Jani and Sandeep Khosla are framed as the keepers of the subcontinent’s textile heritage. We are also introduced to contemporary European designers who turn to India for inspiration — and more importantly to source fabric and other materials from the looms and artisanal workshops of various Indian states. But this is only to be expected of a show with Indian sponsors, including a high-end real-estate developer, jeweller and home decor company.

    My point here is not to begrudge the V&A or the exhibition, but to marvel at the display of Indian soft power at its finest. Academic Joseph Nye coined the term ‘soft power’ — as opposed to ‘hard power’ such as military might — to describe a foreign policy strategy that relies on enticement rather than intimidation, and is implemented through civilian instruments such as diplomacy, investment, humanitarian work, strategic communication and artistic exchange.

    Our neighbour has no doubt mastered the art of co-opting rather than coercing, of appealing to rather than appalling (as anyone who has seen the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel films will attest). The India brand is as strong as ever, and no number of Shiv Sena antics, human rights violations, communal incidents or poor development indicators will mar that — no doubt to the extreme frustration of the powers that be in Pakistan.

    Moreover, soft power is the work of diplomats and bureaucrats, not men in uniform. When implemented by soldiers, the same strategies are propaganda, not soft power. As the balance of power continues to tip toward Pindi, it seems the soft power we have exerted (primarily, it seems, in the form of Fawad and Mahira) will begin to dissipate too.
  6. Bornubus

    Bornubus Senior Member Senior Member

    Oct 13, 2015
    Likes Received:
    None of our neighbours spooked by our military build up as the writer suggested secondly the focus is now on Offencive Defence doctrine not cold start, why would we retaliate a terrorist attack with a military action which is costly both monetary and in terms of life.
  7. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    May 6, 2013
    Likes Received:
    This paki that is a physics "expert" needs to apply his scientific mind to the following possiblability:

    1. Yes Pakistan has risk of being punished for its policies like he points out;

    2. If Israel sends some jets and even missiles into Pakistan to take out hn nuke targets (aka cold start with flavour)

    3. Does nuke retaliation apply to them

    If you are saying nuke response India does it corresponds to ALL of India for instance our scientific city called Bangalore and beyond that . therefore the ranges are large and 360' (more on that later). does it apply only inside Pakistan and zero (0%) of India is in focus.

    Is it another scientific approach where Pakistan saying that only one-fourth (25%) of India is only sufficient for their nuclear doctrine.

    When they say ONLY India but also say defender of Mecca that signify already their jets and missiles can point towards west.

    Physics experts needs to also add another "I" to the dictionary that is Israel and Pakistan policy towards it is identical to India and it is unavoidably a fact they cannot remove since their weapons systems cannot.magically only point east.

    (This also applies to PRC since Pakis are known to attack and take out previous benefactors. uSA policy experts love to have no memory of pakis murdering americans (and nato and even Israelites). This also clearly shows pakis do not have a internal system deactivation button if they do not point towards India - they can attack outside the borders of India and yes that includes PRC and Israel and even European)

    The words Islamic is the reason why pakis are reasonably allowed to look 360' and especially telling the Islamic world that it is a fact they are the only Islamic nuclear weapon area and feel that in their policy and posture to even including Israel and Europe and USA. States from turkey to Saudi feel the benefits of pakis having nukes. And India is no where near such policy. Where is only India policy with respect to Saudi and Turkey and their self actualization. If it is not India who is the balance. Physics is mind blowing to some.

    Pakis are not a risk only to India it is much more. This physics expert needs to apply his mind to the west and see its benefits.–Pakistan_relations

    Some physics commentary below:

    The Pakistan Air Force participated in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War; Pakistani pilots flying Jordanian and Syrian planes repeatedly engaged the Israeli Air Force and shot down Israeli planes.[6] Saiful Azam, who served as a Pakistani fighter pilot claims to have shot down at least 4 Israeli planes during the Six-Day War.[7] After the Yom Kippur War, Pakistan and the PLO signed an agreement for training PLO officers in Pakistani military institutions.[8] During the 1982 Lebanon War, Pakistani volunteers served in the PLO and 50 were taken prisoner during the Siege of Beirut.
    After successfully destroying Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel allegedly planned a similar attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta in collusion with India in the 1980s. Using satellite pictures and intelligence information, Israel reportedly built a full-scale mock-up of Kahuta facility in the Negev Desert where pilots of F-16 and F-15 squadrons practiced mock attacks.

    Its kind of.Israel to not attack Pakistan because of concern to india where the one policy of Pakistan that is dangerous is no matter who attacks Pakistan even if it is israel and to other range of USA and even PRC they will attack India and ask.questions later. But Even Iran ... Even afganistan. Even non-nuke state. That's where it gets fascinating.

    The suicidal paki physics policy. It is absurd and crazy that is making and destabilizing much more beyond india. But it has its scientific calculations that are risk to pakis and they have to know it.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2015
  8. LordOfTheUnderworlds

    LordOfTheUnderworlds Regular Member

    Feb 9, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Patal Lok
    I understand Indian nuclear doctrine states Indian response to nuclear strike will be disproportionate devastating etc. But it needs to specify against which entity i.e. against individual country or alliance. It should state clearly that the response will be against the military alliance and that any country supporting the concerned nation for war will be considered part of belligerent alliance. This is especially for giving indirect yet clear message to China which finds it tempting to use Pakistan as mercenary against India and wants to encroach and use occupied Indian land in GB and build naval base right next to India/middle east as part of strategic corridor in the name of economically non-viable so called CPEC.

    Talking about non specific response against all Muslim countries like people are doing here sounds Childish and embarrassing.
    sayareakd likes this.
  9. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Jan 19, 2011
    Likes Received:
    The Republic of India
    First off, there are no winners in a Nuclear war. It is a matter of who loses the least.
    Next, if India were to launch Nuclear weapons on Pakistan, it would mean fallout over a large area of valley plains brought by wind, water and soil contamination. Not only would it render a large part of Pakistan inhabitable (after annexation) it may significantly affect farming and health in the northern plains of India.
    So the best possible way to win a 'nuclear' war against Pakistan should do much more than just use tactical nukes on the forces of Pakistan and strategic nukes on Pakistani populace. India should do its best to identify the yield and location of all Pakistan nuclear weapons. Then a simultaneous shock and awe attack across Pakistan which would take out all AF bases, all Naval bases, Strategic warehouses etc and most importantly the C&C of Paki nukes and of course ISI HQ.
  10. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    May 29, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Anything that puts Pakistan at parity with India must be ignored. @bennedose

    Entertaining such articles must be avoided as it feeds these Pakistanis back to further push their moronic POV across. Though it doesn't even scratch let alone stir our military doctrines (declared or Ambiguous) but it cause plenty of nuisance in general Indian discourse where many Indians start pondering and countering them.

    Our strength lies in Pakistani exasperation as they keep changing their tactics and keep feeding their gullible populations by inventing mythical scenarios accordingly.

    Once I use to think good about Pakistan military as an informed adversary but the truth was opposite when I found few videos on Kargil war. They had the same misconceptions in late 90's; they had since their inception that one Pakistani equal ten Indians. When I started looking for the source of such bigotry I was able to isolate general Pakistani media discourse where lying has become mainstream.

    Pervez Hoodbouy may have been few saner voices in Pakistan, but such saner voices can be used for a purpose. For last month or so (If you guys are not following) even @Hari Sud highlighted in one of its posts Pakistan is struggling to justify its tactical nuke rants to world at large. Nawaj Sharif Mulla went to USA to complain about India but ended up signing on dotted line to take action against LeT. Now his government official have been coming out more that two instances to justify Pakistan's nuclear posture. Hoodbouy seems an extension to me of same propaganda drive that is out to put Indian and Pakistan in same bracket of nuclear flash point theory where Pakistan is being shown as a victim/defender, who will use tactical nukes and India will/should show restraint.
  11. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Aug 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    In order to do this job, you have to keep a nuclear force of over 1000 warhead, which may bankcrupt India goveronment long before the nuclear war.

    BATTLE FIELD Battle Captain

    Oct 4, 2015
    Likes Received:
    russian or European nukes cost that much.
    not like cheap chini maal which is cheaper than a fire cracker and only poor begger failed state like porkistan buys them.

    well we dont need that much nukes.

    the fact is we can destroy fail state pakistan without using nukes.they cant fight us with regular convectional weapons.

    if pakis use nuke we will loose some territory or part of our land and population.
    but if we use our nukes the whole pakistan will wipe out from the world map.
    pakistan nukes are only for show.
  13. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Feb 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Pakistan has already changed their doctrine to full spectrum nukes. Nukes are actually useless if you are sane as they have no economic benifits.
    Looks like our policy to make them bankrupt is getting successful.

Share This Page