Search results

Then we'll match your vigor to defend it with our vigor to destroy it.

We know that, we both won't exist, but we will have turned your Kabba into an irradiated crater on our way out. Our nuclear subs can get as close as 115 km to Mecca, and unload a barrage of nuclear-tipped SLBMs on it. Let's see how many you'll be able to intercept when your response time is...

How would they be the saviors of their faith when they're endangering it? Again, this is my line of argument. Build defences > Hope for the best > If there's another 26/11, have the ability to cross LoC/IB. The current nuclear equation doesn't allow that, so Pakistan will continue to fund...

That is insufficient deterrence to Pakistan going nuclear, which is my whole point. Since Pakistan gained nuclear weapons, India has never been able to cross LoC/IB, we sugarcoated our inability to do that with "respect for International law" but we know that's bullshit. When they didn't have...

Well then thank god we have INS Arihant, which can sail within 200 miles of Mecca and rain SLBMs on the Kabba.

Good, this shows that it is indeed a valuable target, and should be added to our second-strike.

BTW, don't most of Pakistan's populated areas fall into the range of our tube-SRBM Prahaar?

Except that we don't disclose that part of our doctrine to the world.

As long as their generals are fed, they don't care about "internal bleeding." We can't copy their strategy, it just won't work. It will only rile their population up to create more cannon-fodder. The way forward is to build our internal security/intelligence apparatus, improve border security...

We're talking about two different subjects. I'm talking about how we can make Pakistan's decision to go nuclear first costly, and raise their stakes to our levels. Right now the stakes are lopsided. India has more to lose in a nuclear exchange, and Pakistan is counting on the self-restraint...

Pakistan is a theosophical state. They'll willing to strike first (through terrorism), and then strike first (nuclear), when we respond to terrorism by taking out training camps on their soil. They don't care about their people as much as they care about their ideology. Then let's make that...

In a nuclear exchange with Pakistan (in which Pakistan strikes first), India should also take out these targets outside Pakistan: Mecca-Medina Key Persian Gulf cities (eg: Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi, Doha, etc.) Oilfields in KSA, UAE, Iraq, etc.). A nuked oilfield will burn for decades, till the...

As I began by saying, this will be a second strike doctrine. You will make the mistake of going nuclear first.

That's why war-doctrines are neither up for public debates, nor are they accessible by RTI. I've always endorsed a nuclear second strike doctrine that's based on these: Pakistan believes that in a nuclear war with India, India has more to lose than Pakistan (more cities, more population, bigger...

Tell him that of all the warheads we unload on his country, the last one will head to for Mecca.

Clickbait garbage. Next time there's a 26/11-styled attack, Modi's reputation will be on the line. He will attack, and then Pakistan's nuclear escalation bogey will be put to rest once and for all. People didn't elect Modi to be a "statesman" who rules by the book. People elected him to be an...