Reaction of a nuclear strike on India

[A.V.]

A nuclear strike on the frontline indian territory , installation or the armed corps what and how should india deal with it , let your views it be elaborate

 

[SHASH2K2]

A nuclear strike on the frontline indian territory , installation or the armed corps what and how should india deal with it , let your views it be elaborate

Our response should be complete annihilation of all military installation of enemy and also on water sources.
That will be enough for their slow and painful death eventually.

 

[captonjohn]

Our response should be complete annihilation of all military installation of enemy and also on water sources.
That will be enough for their slow and painful death eventually.

He is talking about details. If we face for example a nuclear strike near Indo-pak border where our troops concentration is heavy then we will lose several thousands of troops and infrastructure. Of course India will respond but how it will manage that strike if we fail to deter that nuclear strike and we see another mushroom on our troops?

I think Pakistan is not fool enough to use one nuke on us and then let us give chance to blow him. Pakistan is filled with mad dogs and they will conduct several nuclear strikes or may use more than 80% nuclear bombs for strike and will strike with their all available missiles to target almost all India. In this case we will have to first kill those missiles on air and then think about any strike. That's why India is developing its own multilayer anti-ballistic missile shield. To face such a overwhelming nuke strike we will have to develop an active missile shield and will have to make our surveillance and intelligence better to get early warning. Currently we have the ability to monitor any activity along Indo-pak border and we will have to increase our surveillance to see deep in Pakistan to track such action.

Pakistan won't believe in fighters and will use missiles so capturing a big portion of land would helpful for us because if we capture 300 - 400 km area then they'll have to use their long range missiles and these missiles are bulky and can't be operated from everywhere. Plus they can be located easily and so can be targeted.

 

[captonjohn]

Also during wartime leadership must be located in multiple places so if one place face nuclear strike then other group of leaders can lead nation. I would prefer to strike first if I get information that Pakistani is preparing for nuclear strike and may strike anytime anywhere.

 

[civfanatic]

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals that consist almost entirely of tactical weapons. We should use our nukes accordingly, and target Pakistani military formations and key military infrastructure. We should avoid targetting civilian populations.

Pakistan will most likely use their nukes in the same manner, as a strategic nuclear strike on India's civilian centers will break loose all hell for Pakistan.

 

[amitkriit]

What is the benefit of no first use? Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?

 

[Royan]

What is the benefit of no first use?

Removes an excuse the attackers could use to nuke us!!

Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?

The fear of a second strike will in most cases prevent a first strike in most cases, if this does not work and people are killed in a first strike we will be left with no choice but to annihilate the opposing country!!
One must remember war and loss of life is like two sides of a coin!

 

[civfanatic]

What is the benefit of no first use?

It's mainly a diplomatic ploy to develop better relations with neighbors, by building confidence in the fact that India will not use nuclear weapons on a whim.

Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?

Well, this is one of the reasons why India is investing heavily in an ABM shield. This will greatly reduce the chance of a successful Pakistani first strike.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

What is the benefit of no first use? Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?

India doesnt have an invasion policy and that too of a nuclear attack. No way. No matters anything happens but India will not nuke any nation first and I support this policy because after the war, atleast no one can point a finger on us for our act.

 

[sayareakd]

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals that consist almost entirely of tactical weapons.

Pakistan yes, We have thermo nukes, they are not tactical.

 

[sayareakd]

What is the benefit of no first use? Does our government wish to loose a few million Indians in nuclear attacks before striking back? Isn't government responsible for safety and security of Indian citizens?

Amit NFU is basically to show our enemy that we have enough capability to absorb their first strike and counter attack them which will have unacceptable damage to their military, its installations, economic centers and large part of their ubran area.

plus it give us high moral ground against our enemy.

Counter attack part has to be so strong that enemy has no option but to abandoned any plan to attack us thus in the process prevent any nuclear attack,, therefore citizen of India is protected this way.

 

[shashi]

Suppose Pak or for that matter , China fires some nuke missiles at us and we are successful in intercepting them. What would our options be ?

 

[debasree]

i think no first strike is a bogus idea in nuke war those who strike first will allways enjoy a tactical advantage,sappose all our deceision making pollitical & millitary brass wiped out in a single strike then what will happen? more over we do not have credible 2nd strike capabillity.

 

[Yusuf]

There is nothing called tactical nukes in the inventory of both india and Pakistan. Both have nukes to be used for strategic gains. The one that strikes first would have lost the war already that it made it use nukes.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

now let us assume a we shoot down a nuclear tipped ballistic missile or a fighter containing nukes ,will we still still retaliate?

 

[Yusuf]

Again, if we take Pak as the aggressor, if they have sent in a nuke missiles means our boys are there in Lahore. Who will you strike against?
Please understand the reasons for using nukes as far as pak is concerned as stated by their doctrine. If they had to use their nukes means they have been badly battered and lost a lot of territory.

 

[civfanatic]

There is nothing called tactical nukes in the inventory of both india and Pakistan. Both have nukes to be used for strategic gains. The one that strikes first would have lost the war already that it made it use nukes.

Pakistani nukes are tactical in the sense that they are intended to be used against Indian military forces on Pakistani soil. Using nuclear weapons on their own soil will (supposedly) shift world opinion towards Pakistan, because it will give the impression of Pakistan resorting to nuclear force only to stop 'Indian aggression'.

Of course, this will happen only if Indian forces have made enormous gains against Pakistani conventional forces, as you have mentioned.

 

[Yusuf]

Pakistani nukes are tactical in the sense that they are intended to be used against Indian military forces on Pakistani soil. Using nuclear weapons on their own soil will (supposedly) shift world opinion towards Pakistan, because it will give the impression of Pakistan resorting to nuclear force only to stop 'Indian aggression'.

Of course, this will happen only if Indian forces have made enormous gains against Pakistani conventional forces, as you have mentioned.

Pak doctrine does not say their nukes will be used on advancing indian soldiers. They are very clear about lobbing nukes on delhi, mumbai etc.

 

[mayfair]

Pak doctrine does not say their nukes will be used on advancing indian soldiers. They are very clear about lobbing nukes on delhi, mumbai etc.

I can see them going for a two prong attack in such a scenario- Nuclear tipped cruise missiles Babur and Ra'ad against the invading Indian ground forces and nuclear armed ballistic missiles Ghauri and Shaheen targeted at key politico-economic centres in India.

 

[Param]

now let us assume a we shoot down a nuclear tipped ballistic missile or a fighter containing nukes ,will we still still retaliate?

We should (any other country would do) but I doubt our govt would take such a decision.