Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike

[SPIEZ]

LB, India is big, huge actually. We can limit destruction if we go by my post earlier in the thread. Then implement Yusuf's Doctrine.

The destruction would be profound 10 or 100 times more than that at Hiroshima n Nagasaki. The destruction wouldn't be limited to one generation,it would stick on for the decades to come.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Once in a while I would like someone to make a statement to throw out no first
Use policy just to shake things up.

 

[Yusuf]

If Pakistan destroys Delhi and Mumbai then we've already lost.

Wrong. Nukes are the last choice weapons. Whoever uses it has just lost the war and thrown the last dice.

 

[SPIEZ]

Just think about it. No nukes and India wouldn't have been denied technology after 1998. And we certainly wouldn't have been sitting on our hands after Kargil or 2002 after the parliamentary attacks.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

If pakistan is targeting population centers I doubt pakistan will exist when all is done.

 

[SPIEZ]

If pakistan is targeting population centers I doubt pakistan will exist when all is done.

The time between targeting and squeezing the trigger wouldn't be to high. I bet it would mean stone age part 2

 

[Oracle]

The destruction would be profound 10 or 100 times more than that at Hiroshima n Nagasaki. The destruction wouldn't be limited to one generation,it would stick on for the decades to come.

That's why I said, we should destoy Paki nuclear installation and mobile units, before we decimate them, lessening lives lost in India in process.

 

[A chauhan]

Tell me one thing about our nuclear policy, we say "No first use against non-nuclear powered state" ; if the enemy doesn't have any nuke then how will he respond through second strike ?? shouldn't it be "No use against non-nuclear powered state"

 

[trackwhack]

The next India Pak war we treat it as a conventional war but aggressively capture territory, Karachi and Lahore must fall within one week, Troops on the ground clearing Sindh and POK by week two. I'm sure Ray and lemontree will laugh at me for writing down timelines but willing to take those chances. between week one and two one of two things will happen.
1) Pukes will go nuclear, we respond by taking out pindi and islamabad and shut down their installations with massive air power.
2) Pak will surrender, but we have to accept those clauses based on denuking them.

Splitting Pak later is a consequence of either outcome, We sign a UN recognized pact with Balochistan saying our army will be present there for three to five years to clear out any more resistance and form a local administration there. They will be happy to oblige. Kashmir is reaneexed, there will be Chinese casualties in GB if they are armed and fight us.

The headaches will be as to what to do with Sindh and Punjab. I would suggest an internal refurrendem between the two about staying together or splitting. If either chooses split, then with the help of UN, it becomes Sindhudesh and Punjab.

Longer term visions include Pashtunistan by merging with Northern Afghanistan if the rest of the Afghans agree, Taliban issue might get resolved too.

This is how it should pan out, anything less is a problem.

 

[SPIEZ]

Tell me one thing about our nuclear policy, we say "No first use against non-nuclear powered state" ; if the enemy doesn't have any nuke then how will he respond through second strike ?? shouldn't it be "No use against non-nuclear powered state"

I think it means that we ll be ready to fire at Pak when the time comes.

 

[H.A.]

Pakistans doctrine calls for use of nuclear weapons when
1) it looses a major chunk of its territory.
2) it looses a major chunk of its armed forces
3) there is severe economic and political hardship caused by ways of blockade.

The doctrine or in other words as others are saying "Yusuf's Doctrine" is indeed thought provoking.

Lets also discuss this:

when it has lost a major part of it's territory, now this could be anything...lets say that as soon as IA crosses the LOC they say we have lost a major territory hence time to use nukes. what would be India's position in such a situation. Shouldn't we launch counter strikes?

 

[LurkerBaba]

If you guys understand the whole point, what's the aim of India? To finish the paki threat itself. Even after nuking them, regardless of what we say, they won't be wiped off the face of the earth as we don't have that many warheads.

India's aim to create a favorable evironment and further our interests. Destruction of Pakistan and their humiliation may not be in our interests.

Example: USA doesn't want to destroy China, they want to contain it

Wrong. Nukes are the last choice weapons. Whoever uses it has just lost the war and thrown the last dice.

Words which may have been relevant during Cold War era

Pakistan isn't in a different continent. The war is going to spill over and have an adverse effect on India. If Indo-pak war escalates into a nuclear conflict then both India and Pakistan have lost

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Instead nuking pakistan we should simultaneously work on destabilizing and splitting pakistan.

 

[H.A.]

If Pakistan destroys Delhi and Mumbai then we've already lost.

No we wouldn't have lost...but yes we would have been crippled because Mumbai is not the only place through which our defence forces operate.

They would certainly be the first targets, hence we have BMD's for them.

 

[SPIEZ]

Instead nuking pakistan we should simultaneously work on destabilizing and splitting pakistan.

Destabilizing is an area we don't have worry much about, splitting would it rather would be fine idea.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Destabilizing is an area we don't have worry much about, splitting would it rather would be fine idea.

There needs to be mukti bhani for the pashtuns start arming ,funding them and the baluchis like
China is doing to pak against india

 

[Yusuf]

There are a few things to note as far as Paki nukes go. Their nukes are at the same technological age as our 1974 nukes were. What they tested in 98 was a ready made nuke and not an experimental device like India. India conducted the tests to.validate improvements in designs we had made since 74 plus the thermonuclear weapon. We collected huge amount of data for further refinement and computer simulation. Just today we heard that our warhead is about 400kgs. A far cry from the 1-1.5Ton single payload missiles that we have.

Point being, Pakis have old warheads with 10-15kt capacity. They will face failures in both missile as well as warhead delivery. This is the reason why they want to build so many. India has ABM as well.

The scenario that I am putting is such that Pakistan has been forced to go nuke because we have severely crippled its armed forces possibly taking out many of their missiles and nuclear facilities and they have lost a lot of land which means our men will be on their soil. We cannot nuke our men.

But the we can give our men free hand in killing anyone who opposes our occupation without having to bother about human rights as we have already suffered say possibly a million dead. We will not be under any moral obligation to not kill.

A nuke for nuke solution does not bring us anything.

Clear political and military goals should be set as to what our objective will be if an all out war breaks down. The poss the question what if they go nuclear? The answer will be let us not reply with the same.

Their sure will be political and public pressure to do so, but the political and military objectives should not be lost.

 

[LurkerBaba]

No we wouldn't have lost...but yes we would have been crippled because Mumbai is not the only place through which our defence forces operate.

They would certainly be the first targets, hence we have BMD's for them.

That was just an example. What makes you think Pakistan will simply target 1-2 cities ? They'll target anything and everything which is of value.

Instead nuking pakistan we should simultaneously work on destabilizing and splitting pakistan.

We've had this discussion before. There is no way to ensure that these pieces will be pro India

Destabilizing is an area we don't have worry much about, splitting would it rather would be fine idea.

Destabilization is indeed something to worry about. Imagine 4-5 Afghanistan like crazed states with 200million jehadis.

There are a few things to note as far as Paki nukes go. Their nukesare at the same technological age as our 1974 nukes were. What they tested in 98 was a ready made nuke and not an experimental device like India. India conducted the tests to.validate improvements in designs we had made since 74 plus the thermonuclear weapon. We collected huge amount of data for further refinement and computer simulation. Just today we heard that our warhead is about 400kgs. A far cry from the 1-1.5Ton single payload missiles that we have.

Point being, Pakis have old warheads with 10-15kt capacity. They will face failures in both missile as well as warhead delivery. This is the reason why they want to build so many. India has ABM as well.

That is pure speculation . According to some sources, Pakistani nukes are proven Chinese designs.

They have more nukes, simply because India is larger in area and Pak mil knows that they can't win a conventional war.

btw our thermonuclear tests were a dud

 

[Yusuf]

India's aim to create a favorable evironment and further our interests. Destruction of Pakistan and their humiliation may not be in our interests.

Example: USA doesn't want to destroy China, they want to contain it



Words which may have been relevant during Cold War era

Pakistan isn't in a different continent. The war is going to spill over and have an adverse effect on India. If Indo-pak war escalates into a nuclear conflict then both India and Pakistan have lost

Are you talking about avoiding a nuclear war? Well everyone wants to. But like you said, we never know with Pak. I personally have maintained over the years that the Pak nuke threat is a bluff but then we need to have options ready just incase they are not bluffing.

India as a country will survive a nuclear strike. We are just too big to be destroyed.

You also have to understand nuclear targeting. UK had all its 200 nukes targeted at Moscow. That it what they concluded after deliberating over and over again as to what it would take to destroy Moscow. Pakistan is not UK. No megaton nukes, no reliable delivery system. Add to that our ABM.

You also have to factor in separatist movements who are favorable to India. The Baloch, the Sindhis. We cannot. His Karachi. But yes we can round up Mohajirs and eliminate them if they do not fall in line. Like I said earlier without any moral dilemma as we have already been nuked and have license to kill.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There is no guarantee pieces will be pro Indian then do what big powers do take them out put our puppets in.