Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike

[Yusuf]

We are a federal state. As united a nation as we are, a catastrophe like being nuked will test that unity.

If Modi is Gujarat CM and they nuke Ahmedabad and Delhi says ok, we wont nuke them back, what do you think will happen?


We dont need to wipe out all of them. We just should not be stupid enough to go occupy their cities. We wont be able to hold it. And we will lose the war when they nuke us and we cannot retaliate. We would have shot ourselves in the foot.

Winning the war and a dismantled Pakistan will take care.

 

[trackwhack]

Winning the war and a dismantled Pakistan will take care.

No it wont. Dont be naive. We dont have a billion Gandhi's or jesus christs in our country. We are normal human beings who experience normal human emotions.

When the US lost 3500 people on 911, they went out and killed more than a million people between Afghanistan and Iraq. Go figure.

 

[Yusuf]

No it wont. Dont be naive. We dont have a billion Gandhi's or jesus christs in our country. We are normal human beings who experience normal human emotions.

When the US lost 3500 people on 911, they went out and killed more than a million people between Afghanistan and Iraq. Go figure.

And we will kill millions of them with a no holds barred license to our armed forces.

 

[trackwhack]

And we will kill millions of them with a no holds barred license to our armed forces.

Do you even know anything about urban warfare? How and who are you going to kill in their cities? How is any army of any size gonna "kill millions". Are you planning a war that lasts 20 years?

 

[Tolaha]

Once the Pakistanis nuke us, it is a given that India needs to ensure that Pakistan as an entity (nation) no longer survives. I don't see how we could completely destroy Pakistan without having to suffer the aftermaths of the nuclear radiation seeping in from Pakistan. So probably we couldn't spend more than a few nukes destroying their major cities!

The real question IMO is what we do with the Chinese. Chinese supplied those nukes to Pakistan being fully aware of their intended use. However, we still are in no position to target the Chinese without total annihilation of ourselves.

 

[trackwhack]

The tradeoff for our losses is getting back all of Kashmir and then some. If we lose half a dozen cities, we lose about 20% of our GDP. Its a tough trade off but if it ensures total control of Pakistan it is worth it.

 

[A chauhan]

Nukes can be used to punish the enemy or strategically or end the war just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but i dont think it can be used for capturing the territories, because you wont wish to send your soldiers to an area full of radiation, so i dont think we should wish to capture Paki land, except our PoK. So if you want to capture an enemy area you should better use conventional warheads.

 

[trackwhack]

Nukes can be used to punish the enemy or strategically or end the war just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but i dont think it can be used for capturing the territories, because you wont wish to send your soldiers to an area full of radiation, so i dont think we should wish to capture Paki land, except our PoK. So if you want to capture an enemy area you should better use conventional warheads.

Of course, why would we want wasteland? We get Kashmir back and then a little more of fertile Punjab to accomodate the Pakistani Sikh population after the war. But the mangled remains of Pindi and Islamabad belongs to the Pukes who survived the war.

 

[Tolaha]

Of course, why would we want wasteland? We get Kashmir back and then a little more of fertile Punjab to accomodate the Pakistani Sikh population after the war. But the mangled remains of Pindi and Islamabad belongs to the Pukes who survived the war.

Once you destroy those cities, the Punjabs on both sides of the border would be under the haze of radiation. And Indus may not be able to be used for a few years. India will be expected to feed millions while gaining land that is worse than nothing.

 

[Yusuf]

We are not going to be an occupying force but more of a liberating force for the two Pakistani provinces that want independence and we we have to take back PoK. So for a short period we will be right there.

 

[trackwhack]

Once you destroy those cities, the Punjabs on both sides of the border would be under the haze of radiation. And Indus may not be able to be used for a few years. India will be expected to feed millions while gaining land that is worse than nothing.

Lahore cant be nuked, its too close to the border, the other cities can be without any significant radiation fallout.

Ionizing radiation is also a function of the device type and Indian nukes (as well as most modern nukes) are implosion type where radiation fallout is far less than the gun type. Bombing Pindi and Islamabad will hardly result in any fallout that will impact India.

Any city more than 50 km from the Indian border is good meat.

Please note, I am not advocating a nuclear strike, only a nuclear response in line with our doctrine of massive retaliation.

 

[arya]

Lahore cant be nuked, its too close to the border, the other cities can be without any significant radiation fallout.

Ionizing radiation is also a function of the device type and Indian nukes (as well as most modern nukes) are implosion type where radiation fallout is far less than the gun type. Bombing Pindi and Islamabad will hardly result in any fallout that will impact India.

Any city more than 50 km from the Indian border is good meat.

Please note, I am not advocating a nuclear strike, only a nuclear response in line with our doctrine of massive retaliation.

pls tell me is any one here in India who can take such a decision , well now army is pet to leaders . leaders are just making money .

they dont have 1% for the nation they will take flight for other nation if war take place mark my words

 

[Yusuf]

pls tell me is any one here in India who can take such a decision , well now army is pet to leaders . leaders are just making money .

they dont have 1% for the nation they will take flight for other nation if war take place mark my words

 

[ani82v]

pls tell me is any one here in India who can take such a decision , well now army is pet to leaders . leaders are just making money .

they dont have 1% for the nation they will take flight for other nation if war take place mark my words

Why don't you think this way? Majority of the corrupt politicians have invested quite heavily in India via Mauritius. If value of their investments deteriorates and vanishes due to nuclear strike, won't they be might angry? It would be like corrupt Indian politician teaching a corrupt Paki military a nuclear lesson. They may be corrupt but they are not dumb.

 

[pmaitra]

Well, on the topic of flattering both Islamabad and Pindi completely that nothing survives, I'bad is 906sqkm and Pindi about 150. Anyone who thinks can destroy both cities with one nuclear bomb even if it was a Megaton yield is dreaming. You will require multiple hits on Islamabad in different areas to finish it.

I remember Stuart Slade talking about multiple megaton hits on London and London still surviving.
People have all kinds of wrong notions about nuclear warfare.

This whole talk about wiping off the map and glassing Pakistan is stuff fanboys are made off. Only the US and Soviets could do something like that.

You propose to use two megaton bombs, one each for Islamabad and Rawalpindi? The first one will destroy most of the metro area, but what will the second one do? Kill an already dead city?

Do you have a link on Stuart Slade's commentary? I doubt he is making an informed suggestion, but I'd like to see his PoV.

Even if that one megaton bomb does not kill anyone, the entire population living in that area will be taken out of the picture w.r.t possible participation in a war, including those surviving in underground hardened bunkers.

Why waste a warhead for nothing?

Here is a perspective on a 200 kT bomb:

 

[ani82v]

India has to bomb back some Pakistani cities, that's for sure. And to humiliate Pakistani Army, Indian Army will have to go in and destroy every standing structure belonging to Pak Army.

The real problem will be aftermath. India has to establish a political structure so that there are no new threats emanating from West of Indian border.

Liberating Sindh has its own problems:
1. Even if there are sentiments for more autonomy in Sindh, they may not be necessarily secessionist.
2. Due to an consistent Kafir hating, pro Islamist Zia curricula, majority would not be very thankful to India for liberation. And war would only swell the ranks of Difa-e-Pukistan Council and the types.

Therefore, as the people will be anti-India both in Liberated Sindh and Pakjab, India will be forced to deal with 2 hostile nations.
Another eventuality for Sindh is a low scale armed conflict between hardline Islamists supported by Pak and moderate Sindhis with Indian support. India will be forced to take security responsibility for Sindh. And it will be in Pakjab's interest for conflict to intensify.

 

[just4nikhilesh]

pak strik at kargil we are not reply
pak attack at sansad bhavan again we are .....
pak attack at mumbai once again we are not.....
pak lounch nuclear attack now are not live for reply thats the case
every time after 1971 we are sleeping

 

[natarajan]

Dont worry we will stop peace talk and start it after couple of years,then we send dossiers thousands of pages to pakistan and then last we will keep saying we will take strong action.Dont worry if possible all our congress top people use c-130 and escape to italy ,that is the reason we buy transport aircraft immediately which will be used to transport them along with precious things

 

[Drsomnath999]

Is Pakistan's Paranoia Pushing it Into a Nuclear War with India?

The possibility of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India grows every day. If the Pakistanis do not bring under control the terrorist groups in the country and resolve the conflicts with India, it is not a matter of if it will happen, but when.

There have been few achievements to celebrate in the sixty-five year history of Pakistan and that has made the success of the nuclear program central to the national identity. This is especially true for the military that receives a quarter of the budget and is the only strong national institution.

Development of the weapons started in January of 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, when he was the Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources. The decision to go nuclear came after a disastrous military defeat in 1971 by India. Bangladesh with Indian assistance separated from Pakistan.

Without its eastern territory, Pakistan was facing an enemy six times larger. The only way to deal with such a threat was to acquire an equalizer. Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Bogra stated in 1954, "When there is more equality of military strength, then I am sure that there will be a greater chance of settlement." His words expressed what is an ongoing national preoccupation with military parity with the far more powerful India.

India joined the nuclear club in 1974. Pakistan followed in 1998 and became the only Moslem nuclear power with what became known as the "Islamic Bomb;" and that made it a leader in the Islamic world community.

The Pakistan high command believed that the U.S. does not want a Moslem country to possess nuclear weapons and will at some time in the future attempt to seize or destroy its arsenal. Since September of 2001, much of the American military action has been directed towards Moslem states. As the sole nuclear Islamic country, that convinces the Pakistanis that they too will be targeted.

Washington worries that Pakistan with a number of terrorist organizations supported by the Inter-Service Intelligence is the one place where terrorists would be the most likely to acquire a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. A high ranking official of the Inter Service Intelligence told the Atlantic for a December 2011 article on the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, "You must trust us that we have maximum and impenetrable security. No one with ill intent can get near our strategic assets."

Since April 2012, The Strategic Plans Division that is charged with protecting the nuclear arsenal of an estimated ninety to one hundred and ten strategic warheads has been adding an additional eight thousand specially trained troops to protect the storage facilities from an American attempt to seize or destroy the nuclear weapons. A retired high level Pakistani officer confided that he and many of his colleagues believe that the U.S. will move against nuclear facilities shortly after the American combat role ends in Afghanistan. He and his colleagues expect the United States to abandon Pakistan as it did in 1989 when the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan.

The raid by U.S. special operation forces into Abbottabad in May of 2011 to kill Osama Bin Laden has been taken as a warning signal by chief of army staff General Ashfaq Kayani what to expect. Senator John Kerry was sent to Pakistan shortly after the raid to explain the American position. He did not reduce the general's anxieties when he declined to provide a written guarantee that the U.S. would not attack the Pakistani nuclear storage facilities.

The positioning in the region of units under the United States Joint Special Operations Command is a factor that is feeding the Pakistani paranoia. The task of JOSC is to keep out of the hands of terrorists nuclear materials that were abandoned when the Soviet Union left the Central Asian states. Included in what is seen as a high risk region is Pakistan that is on the list of failed or failing states.

Satellite photos and other sources estimate that there are fifteen locations where weapons or nuclear materials are likely to be kept. Six of these have been attacked by terrorists, although no weapons or materials have been taken.

The generals are probably telling the truth when they say that the weapons are safe in the military facilities. What they are not saying is that their effort to evade detection by the Americans has created other serious flaws in the security.

The assurance that the weapons are safe from attackers collapses once a warhead leave the guarded facilities. Weapons are being moved frequently in lightly defended ordinary vehicles along public highways to prevent Indian and American spy satellites or snooping drones from tracking the movements. There is little doubt that various extremist organizations have penetrated the military and are aware of the schedules and routes, but ISI acts as if it has enough control over the terrorists to prevent an ambush.

The larger strategic nuclear warheads are often transported disassembled. Recently, though, Pakistan has adopted tactical nuclear weapons with smaller warheads that are easier to moved assembled.

In April, ISI released photos of the Nasr, a new sixty kilometer range missile that appears to be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Because of the short range of the weapon, it will have to be positioned close to the frontier. That places the missile in a more vulnerable position for a terrorist group to seize while being transported along public highways or in isolated locations.

At the time that Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, military strategists rejected tactical nuclear weapons because they would provoke the Indians to escalate to strategic weapons in response. That opinion has changed. The addition of a fourth nuclear reactor at Khushab that produces plutonium to be used in tactical weapons says that the inventory will be expanded.

Estimates of the amount of enriched uranium and plutonium in their inventory in 2011 places the potential number of weapons that can be produced at between 160 and 240. They are developing as well two cruise missiles, two short range shoot and scoot type missiles and two ballistic missiles that will all require different types of warheads and different amounts of materials. They have the fourth largest and fastest growing inventory of warheads of the nine nuclear classified countries. What has never been made clear is when they will feel that they have enough warheads to give them a sense of security.

The military consumes so much of the national budget that the country has been forced to curtail other developments. No other source of revenue is available that will enable the Pakistanis to compete with the Indian military that has a budget three times greater than theirs and a growing diversified economy to support its expansion.

The high command has concluded that the only equalizer for the weaker of the competitors is the tactical nuclear weapon. What makes this a very high risk strategy is the Pakistani first-strike policy.

India nearly retaliated against Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai attack. That was before Pakistan had begun deploying tactical nuclear weapons. India would have been able to use its superior forces to crush Pakistani defenses.

Should there be another deadly attack by a Pakistan based terrorist organization, especially if it involves a stolen nuclear warhead, the Indians will not hesitate to retaliate. This time, the Indian army will encounter nuclear weapons in the field. Then, Delhi that has no tactical nuclear weapons will have to decide if a strategic response is to be used. The survival of South Asia and far beyond will be depending on that decision.

Is Pakistan’s Paranoia Pushing it Into a Nuclear War with India? | idrw.org

 

[Yusuf]

While I like such articles which predict doom which helps the sleeping neta-babus, it's not going to happen. Call Pak bluff on nukes at the next available opportunity.