Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Sabir, Aug 25, 2009.
What happen if a nuclear missile lands in Mumbai?
Since we are talking about a future conflict, i was also talking about a future system. So far, India has 100% success with ABM systems (Phase I) it has tested so far.
Depends on the missile. If it is a cruise missile, then it is most likely be carrying a conventional war head. If it is a ballistic missile, it will be construed by India as a nuclear attack and India will counter attack, no two ways about it.
The attempt would be to destroy it en-route. If nuclear material is detected, we have our reason to retaliate. But unless we aren't sure that the warhead is nuclear, even if it costs a nuclear strike, I doubt, we'll put forward a nuclear retaliation.
Why ? BMs don't have to be nuclear.
that is what we have been discussing ;should we accept the possibility of having one nuke drop by keeping this policy? I personally feel it's unacceptable, but many have expressed the reasons for having it well, and in a practical sense in our current situation it fits nicely and any changes can be interpreted as aggressive posturing.
Mumbai will be wiped off the Indian map. As simple as that.
In return, Pakistan will be wiped off the Atlas.
Because conventional and nuclear BMs are indistinguishable. So, any BM attack will be construed as nuclear attack despite whatever warhead it carries.
India has tested its ABM for 3 times. I am not sure how many times the US has test fired its ABM, but they are not yet claimed it will provide 100% success against missiles fired at US. May be in your opinion India missile technology is better than that of US.
No ABM can prevent an attack from a cruise missile. I was only taking about ballistic missile.
Indian scientist claim our BMD to be 97% effective. cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would require miniturization technology that pakistan does not have.
Before Pakistan is wiped out of Atlas it will take 9/10 big cities of India with it. I am taking about Pakistan not Palestine!!
I think there was some fiction where Pakistan starts it, Xia puts one in Mumbai and India gives up.
Just thought you should know.
My view is that nukes can only be used none at all or all at once, primarily because war is mere diplomacy while nuke is question of survival.
So no point giving up NFU. Indians have nothing to gain and a lot lot lot to loose, in purely diplomatic terms.
BTW The idea is too academic. Do the declarations/treatys/written word, matter at all when the question is of Survival of the fittest and Evolutionary advantage.
You think Pakistani leaders will be willing to sign their own annihilation by ordering the strikes ?
I don't even see a nuclear war coming. I was merely replying to your post.
P.S. Be assured. I know the difference between Pakistan and Palestine.
I think LF has already answered your question. Let me add some more to it. Cruise missile payload is very less and the chance of it using for nuclear attacks will be more for tactical purposes (like attacking incoming enemy) and the area it will cover will be very miniscule. Cruise missiles doesn't have the range to reach mumbai or delhi as of now. Moreover, Pakistan doesn't have the capability to miniaturize the nuclear warhead to fit on a cruise missile.
ABM may not be 100% effective but if it can prevent even 50% missiles it will be a great job as the Pakistanis have to use double the number of missiles/warheads to take out same area.
Are you sure Pakistani leaders will remain there in Pakistan in case of a War? I think they will be on a official visit to US,UK or any other cool destination…
I don't see any nuclear war coming. I was replying to one of the other posts.
It matters when the choice is intelligent. It doesn't matter when the choice is desperate.
I think you are getting me wrong. I am not taking about cruise missile here. I am only taking about ballistic missile. I have serious doubt about the capability of Pakistani cruise missile.
I will wait till our Defense forces deploy ABM.
Guys NFU is a smart move as it allows us to build a large arsenal of nukes and punish the enemy with impuinity, it detters pakistan to use nukes first on India. On the other hand if we have a first use policy it will surely turn a conventional conflict with pakistan into a nuclear on because it will create a great confusion and also with NFU we can have a chance to fire ballistic missiles like Prithvi and agni-1 on pakistan to take out targets deep inside.
Also i dont agree with someone that we dont have enough nukes to make first strike, i think its not true because we have large enough fissile material to make many 100 nukes but 2nd strike doctrine gives us a excuse to develop a larger nuclear triad with nuclear subs etc., certianly nobody can take out all the nuclear targets in enemy locations as it requires megaton nukes in thousands to completely wipe off a nation.
I hink we should have a clause that in case of losing a big chunk of territory we can use some tactical nukes on our lost territory to wipe occupying forces.
Of course we are not ready at with ABM. But it is showing a good promise.
india under our present netas wont ever never think of retaliation itself(nov 26) then how can we think of first use of nuke :blum3:
What according to you, is the purpose of a nuclear strike ?
Separate names with a comma.