Mikesingh
Professional
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 7,353
- Likes
- 30,450
Pakistanis have been falling over each other extolling the virtues of its 'tactical' or battlefield nuclear weapon - Nasr. But all that hype in nothing but pure rubbish. Let's analyze one probable scenario and check out their efficacy in a nuclear environment. Here I am not touching upon the effects of a massive Indian nuclear retaliation but only whether their Nasrs would be effective in the event of an Indian attack across a broad front deep into Pakistan territory.
So here's the math to put at rest Pakistani jingoism........
For a max 5kt warhead (max 5kt warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 kt)
– Blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km
Integrated Battle Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.
How many nukes would be required to neutralize one CG? - 25.
Initial strike with 10 -15 integrated battle groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.
Minimum battlefield nukes needed to neutralize the CGs > 250 Nasrs!
That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! How many do they have? And remember, all tanks and armored personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.
So, going a step further, 250x5 kt =1250 kt ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!)
What would be left of Eastern Pakistan?
The world nuclear powers have discarded their doctrine of using tactical nukes due to their inherent disadvantages, the most important one being the threat of an all out counter-value response from the enemy. It would be impossible to restrict it to a limited counter-force nuclear exchange in a limited theater of operations.
It's beyond comprehension why Pak generals, who are not known for strategic thinking anyway, assume that the Nasr is the best weapon to thwart an Indian offensive! It seems that these Paki generals haven't factored in massive Indian counter-value retaliation as well as the minimal effect the Nasrs would have on the fast advancing integrated battle groups as targeting them on the move will not be a cinch!
So here's the math to put at rest Pakistani jingoism........
For a max 5kt warhead (max 5kt warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 kt)
– Blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km
Integrated Battle Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.
How many nukes would be required to neutralize one CG? - 25.
Initial strike with 10 -15 integrated battle groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.
Minimum battlefield nukes needed to neutralize the CGs > 250 Nasrs!
That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! How many do they have? And remember, all tanks and armored personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.
So, going a step further, 250x5 kt =1250 kt ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!)
What would be left of Eastern Pakistan?
The world nuclear powers have discarded their doctrine of using tactical nukes due to their inherent disadvantages, the most important one being the threat of an all out counter-value response from the enemy. It would be impossible to restrict it to a limited counter-force nuclear exchange in a limited theater of operations.
It's beyond comprehension why Pak generals, who are not known for strategic thinking anyway, assume that the Nasr is the best weapon to thwart an Indian offensive! It seems that these Paki generals haven't factored in massive Indian counter-value retaliation as well as the minimal effect the Nasrs would have on the fast advancing integrated battle groups as targeting them on the move will not be a cinch!
