11 Feb '13: Pakistan conducts test fires of two Hatf-IX Nasr BRBMs

[Kompromat]

congrats !!!

Whats the meaning of " Nasr " ??

"Assistance/Reinforcement"

 

[MilSpec]

Did you even pause to understand the context before replying ? Its very easy to say that Pakistan is insane and will cross the threshold by nuking an Indian battle formation and India will say Thank you and retreat.. Only fools or suicidal generals will think and plan on those lines.

Haven't they always?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

"Assistance/Reinforcement"

Does'nt it mean- victory?
That is the name that pakistani think-tanks have assigned to Hatf 9.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Dude, I am not contesting that CSD may get blown into a nuke response by Pakistan, but its idiotic to assume that Pakistan will cross the threshold and just because they use tactical nukes, India will not up the ante.. And thats what my response was. Pakistanis have a tendency to believe that they can define the boundaries of an engagement.. Like Pakistan's attack in 1965 banked on the assumption that India will not open the front on the IB. Similarly in Kargil, Musharraf assumed that India will not up the ante.. In both cases India did not conform to those assumptions and Pakistan lost the initiative. And its never the doctrines that are suicidal, but the doctrines which assume that the opponent will play by your rules are bound to fail.

btw, have you imagined this scenario.. Indian army opens a front in Punjab and one or more strike corps moves say 40-50 km inside Pakistani borders in Lahore sector. Your contention is that Pak will use Nukes to destroy this strike corps and India will not escalate the Nuke war.. Though the assumption is laughable, but for a moment lets go with it.. So India loses a strike corps, but remember Pakistan just nuked its most fertile area and made it unusable for next 100 years. Along with killing thousands of its own civilians. Think about it.. bet you never did



Can you post some details about Operation Brasstacks that back your contention from a impartial source? The only mobilization India did and backed away from was in 2002. And the reasons then were more political after Musharraf did a lame cop out by publicly promising to not back terrorism in India. Its funny how you conveniently forget the global embarrassments Pakistan had to go thru because of its shenanigans and only remember India's reactions .. Maybe your mind refuses to accept painful memories of you heads of state's public humiliation ..




That's why Pakistan always loses the plot internationally. No long term thought process...It was not enough to make Pakistan the bad guy.. India needed itself to be seen as the Good guy too.. which all but killed Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. Post Kargil, the regular stream of statements about Kashmir from international sources which use to pop up at regular intervals has slowed down to less than a trickle..

Actually your whole argument is based on defining Pakistan nuclear threshold as extremely low and India's extremely high..Which may be true because today India has much to lose in case of a nuclear exchange, and Pakistan pretty much has nothing and your argument of Pakistan behaving like a suicide bomber may well be true. But strategies need to factor in changing environments and unless you believe that Pakistan will always stay in the dumps like it is today, such a strategy is extremely flawed. Compound that with your assertion of nuking your own land (and your own civilians) to stop an advancing army inside your borders, and you have a failed strategy on your hands...



More like a comedian with a bad sense of timing.

Anybody in todays world who dares (or actually dreams) of lowering the Nuclear Threshold is either a Lunatic or plainly Suicidal.

The concept of using Nasr as TNW is quite seriously flawed; for all of the above reasons and more. But that is for the architects and followers of that Doctrinal Concept to find out.

As a Battlefield Saturation Weapon; Nasr is okay. But any other use will simply ratchet up the stakes phenomenally; even out of control of the party making the call. So its simply a weapon of dubious utility in the end.

Just another "Ultimate Cyanide Pill"!

 

[Thorough Pro]

No.

Nasr = Support/Reinforcement
Hataf = Lance of Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

Does'nt it mean- victory?
That is the name that pakistani think-tanks have assigned to Hatf 9.

As long as it discourages the adversary from any misadventure, it achieves its purpose in a peaceful manner, than in my view is the best use of wepon...use without actual use.

Anybody in todays world who dares (or actually dreams) of lowering the Nuclear Threshold is either a Lunatic or plainly Suicidal.

The concept of using Nasr as TNW is quite seriously flawed; for all of the above reasons and more. But that is for the architects and followers of that Doctrinal Concept to find out.

As a Battlefield Saturation Weapon; Nasr is okay. But any other use will simply ratchet up the stakes phenomenally; even out of control of the party making the call. So its simply a weapon of dubious utility in the end.

Just another "Ultimate Cyanide Pill"!

 

[alnaseh]

No.

Nasr = Support/Reinforcement
Hataf = Lance of Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)
.

It really means victory and not support/reinforcement.

 

[Windjammer]

Offtopic...But Apparently Pakistan has attained MARV technology and had it for some years now.

Note these Black circles on the side of Shaheen II warhead assembly...These look like side thrusters..The Re-entry vehicle can make course corrections post boost by using these sideways rocket motors,increasing Accuracy.Also the RV can change course mid-flight,confusing ABM.
Another thing is that this feature of Re-entry vehicle is needed for carrying Multiple warheads..as RV is able to manoever post boost and able to keep flying using a thruster while releasing Warheads at designated intervals angles and altitudes for different targets...So by the looks of Pakistan already has the ability of MIRV,but may be no need for it at the mo..

@Safriz, Very interesting and informative observation indeed, check out the "Shaheen-1A" version, which is also reported to have the MARV capability.....the nose cone certainly looks different compared with the standard "Shaheen-1."

 

[karan.1970]

It worked in 1949 & 1965,

the boundries were changed, n we got Azad Kashmir
Next will be Jammu n Maqboza Kashmir

Another outcome of distorted history books

1947 (not 1949) was Pakistan against the princely state of J&K and not against India. because of that Faux Pas, India has a large part of Kashmir which probably would have gone to Pakistan any way

1965.. No boundary got changed. Pakistan's plan to infiltrate and incite a revolt in Kashmir was repelled by India opening secondary front in Punjab and Rajasthan...

The boundaries though did get changed in 1971 and 1984

It worked in 1949 & 1965,

the boundries were changed, n we got Azad Kashmir
Next will be Jammu n Maqboza Kashmir

Another outcome of distorted history books

1947 (not 1949) was Pakistan against the princely state of J&K and not against India. because of that Faux Pas, India has a large part of Kashmir which probably would have gone to Pakistan any way

1965.. No boundary got changed. Pakistan's plan to infiltrate and incite a revolt in Kashmir was repelled by India opening secondary front in Punjab and Rajasthan...

The boundaries though did get changed in 1971 and 1984

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As long as it discourages the adversary from any misadventure, it achieves its purpose in a peaceful manner, than in my view is the best use of wepon...use without actual use.

That idea of....use without actual use... is the principle behind Nuclear Weapons.
However Nuclear Weapons have not prevented Conventional Wars; they have only prevented Nuclear Wars!
We have had many examples of that all over the world since 1945; including those in the neighborhood.

So how will the Nuke-tipped Nasr be any different?

 

[Imran Khan]

congs to nation hope they reduce it more till we have nuclear artillery too

 

[Windjammer]

Another outcome of distorted history books

1947 (not 1949) was Pakistan against the princely state of J&K and not against India. because of that Faux Pas, India has a large part of Kashmir which probably would have gone to Pakistan any way

1965.. No boundary got changed. Pakistan's plan to infiltrate and incite a revolt in Kashmir was repelled by India opening secondary front in Punjab and Rajasthan...

The boundaries though did get changed in 1971 and 1984

Much closer to our life time, 1999 to be exact, a few peaks also changed hands but then, that would never find any mention in certain Gospel truth history taught in our vicinity.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

congs to nation hope they reduce it more till we have nuclear artillery too

Sure; why not? Next step; nuclear G-3s- IK.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Much closer to our life time, 1999 to be exact, a few peaks also changed hands but then, that would never find any mention in certain Gospel truth history taught in our vicinity.

to be precise 3 peaks on LOC, out of 140 or so peaks you sneaked in, a great achievement indeed considering the number of soldiers you lost, international humiliation and isolation and more..

 

[Bang Galore]

Anybody in todays world who dares (or actually dreams) of lowering the Nuclear Threshold is either a Lunatic or plainly Suicidal.

The concept of using Nasr as TNW is quite seriously flawed; for all of the above reasons and more. But that is for the architects and followers of that Doctrinal Concept to find out.

As a Battlefield Saturation Weapon; Nasr is okay. But any other use will simply ratchet up the stakes phenomenally; even out of control of the party making the call. So its simply a weapon of dubious utility in the end.

Just another "Ultimate Cyanide Pill"!

That idea was always flawed, only an absolute fool would use any sort of nuclear weapon within their own country which might give India a chance to open up a large scale retaliatory nuclear strike. That would be the worst of all possible worlds because even the best case scenario is retaliatory nuclear strikes against the Pakistani forces. Not much of a best case scenario that.

Indians hysteria as usual and they are creating stupid things for their own satisfaction.

If Pakistan use NASR against Indian IBG's then Indian forces will retreat peacefully, only a mentally retard person will risk a full scale nuclear war for what happened in battle field. Its easy to say on internet, i bet in such situation every Indian will pray that things won't escalate beyond battlefield and cease fire. That's why Nasr is so special ideal weapon of choice against enemy evil designs.

...and only a mentally deficient chap will assume that the enemy will do what he wants him to do.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

...and only a mentally deficient chap will assume that the enemy will do what he wants him to do.

Now is'nt that what Cowboy Musharraff and his Gang of 4 thought in 1999?
And then there is ZA Bhutto and his cohorts who conjured up Op Gibraltar to remember also, is'nt it?