Ballistic missile Nasr: A bigger threat from Pakistan

[Alphacharlie]

if you hindus have some balls, then send drones over Pakistan...

wait, you did..and they were blasted into pieces...hah!



And that test was failed

Rediculos POST

 

[KRAIT]

India should focus more on ABM and SLBM. ABM capability has already been explained as how it affects the enemy country. More ABM you have, the enemy has to build more BMs to overwhelm the ABM system. This itself puts a huge stress.

We don't have to focus too much on Aggressive technology of BMs rather than on defensive technology like ABM.

Electronic warfare, Laser ABMs and jamming are another areas where India should focus. It not only keep us away from any critics that India is being aggressive but it helps in projecting India as defensive force. It will be complementary to our No First Use Policy.

We should focus more on counter technologies to get Pakistan in a trap of whether to stop producing more nukes due to International Pressure or keep doing it and put strain on economy and making reasons for International Sanctions.

SSBN acquisition of India will also make Pakistan to get this technology and hence it will increase paranoia of West more regarding Paksitan.

 

[Contrarian]

Nasr is for use inside Pakistani territory.If India advances inside Pakistan and Pakistani forces are overwhelmed,it may be used..
Use "Inside Pakistani territory" isnt the same as used on Indian territory...

You understand that any use of nuclear weapons on Indian forces even on Pakistani soil will lead to a low yield nuclear missile at the base from which the missile was launched, or the regimental HQ of Pakistan or something similar.

A nuclear weapon on Indian forces will be responded by nuclear weapons on Pakistani forces- a counter value weapon, albeit a low yield one - same as Pakistan.

However the assumption that Pakistan's defences have been so badly breached and mauled that Pakistan has had to use nuclear weapons would imply that India's reply to those nuclear weapons on its forces, would mean complete breakdown/destruction of the remaining armed forces fighting ability of Pakistan.

What happens then?

 

[illusion8]

Pakistan has credible airlaunch capablity via Raad.
India doesnt.
Brahmos is yet to be integrated with IAF while PAF mirages are known to carry Raad and JF-17 are 'alleged' to carry two Raads..
So Pakistan is ahead in Airlaunch capability as we speak.

What does one make of it, when all tests were claimed as resounding successes and to the contrary it gets exposed that all tests came a cropper?
Does raise valid questions about the reality of all other tests too.

 

[trident2010]

Nice Story....But I dont understand one thing....While India doing all those macho stuff...Where would be Pakistan Sleeping???


Anyways nice story never the less!

If Pakistan could stop India in conventional war then we won't be having these discussions isn't it?

If Pakistan can't stop Indian advancement inside her border (which we all are assuming is the case) and hence using Nasr, my story turns into reality.

 

[SEAL]

Does someone see a correlation here ??

Livefist: 'Combat-proven' Iron Dome At Aero India 2013

HAHAHA so India is comparing Pakistan fire power to those handmade qasam rockets for which Iron dome is designed for and still it wasn't a complete success. Chanda Iron dome is ineffective in India as we have bombs of all types including deadliest anti-radiation capability we can disable Iron dome in one strike.

 

[Contrarian]

India should focus more on ABM and SLBM. ABM capability has already been explained as how it affects the enemy country. More ABM you have, the enemy has to build more BMs to overwhelm the ABM system. This itself puts a huge stress.

We don't have to focus too much on Aggressive technology of BMs rather than on defensive technology like ABM.

Electronic warfare, Laser ABMs and jamming are another areas where India should focus. It not only keep us away from any critics that India is being aggressive but it helps in projecting India as defensive force. It will be complementary to our No First Use Policy.

We should focus more on counter technologies to get Pakistan in a trap of whether to stop producing more nukes due to International Pressure or keep doing it and put strain on economy and making reasons for International Sanctions.

SSBN acquisition of India will also make Pakistan to get this technology and hence it will increase paranoia of West more regarding Paksitan.

We are already doing that. Pakistan is in a classic bind, it has to keep producing nuclear weapons and its economy is tottering with a TFR of over 3% and an economy growing at 3.5%, they are barely able to maintain static per capita income.

The nuclear weapons, and armed forces of Pakistan drain much of Pakistan's budget. They have to spend an unsustainable amount of money to even maintain the lop sided balance as it currently is, and India is still expanding its military.

They are in a classic US - USSR scenario. Pakistan is headed down if this continues, and we are playing things smartly, forcing them to keep increasing spending on non productive sectors.

This is not going to end well for Pakistan.

 

[trident2010]

Pakistan will obliterate f*lthy hindus from india invading our lands. We don't want Pakistan to become f*lthy like our Eastern neighbor. So we will use any means.

We want launch a nuclear strike on your land. If you still wanted to go ahead...then its your choice. Thousands of years of dharmic history, civilization etc will be turned into smoke. After few centuries, humankind won't even remember that there were some "hindus" and something called "dharmic civilizations" etc...

And how we wonder why Pakistan is in the state of misery !!

Keep saying these things to your future generations of Pakistan and they will make sure Nasr production line is always up and running.

Don't type too loudly with your keyboards, if your visa provider listens to it then they might put you on the drone to its flight back to your homeland

 

[li0nheart]

Has anyone given thought to the range of this "missile". I mean India has rockets with similar range...
What is the practicality of using such short range nuclear delivery system when it can be easily destroyed by rockets on the ground and by A2G missiles from aircrafts? I mean to destroy an invading army formation, it will have to come within 60 km range!
Any thoughts on this?

 

[arbit]

You just don't nuke an entire country over some troops which were invading into the enemy's territory. Nuclear responses are not comparable to the conventional ones. This means that nuclear responses from both sides would have to follow a step-wise escalation, from counter-force to counter-value targets, during which both sides hope to prevent further escalation.

Geheh you think so! We dont agree. We CAN have a different thought process which your planners so conviniently ignore.
Comeon your calculations have gone off the mark before, no self respecting pakistani would deny that.
So what is the guarantee that it will ALL go acc to what YOU believe.

Alright some food for thouht.

It is entirely possible that we have mapped out your territory and posible locations for a nuclear strike. Which are regularly updated as per humint and sat images. Now you strike us first with nukes on paks territory and are sitting plum. A possible conversation might goes like this.

Pak General : bwahaha take that suckers we have nuked you on our soil. Now you cant nuke us.
Pak major : ummm. Why not.
General: cos thats what we think fool. How dare you question our wisdom. Dont you remember kargil? Such a comprehensive victory.
Major: umm.. ok

Meanwhile in indian camp

Indian General : buggers. Nuke their own territory, make their already truncated land some more truncated.
Indian Major: you mean our land did not suffer nuke attack
General: correct
Major: and we can now nuke them?
General: correct
Major: you mean. They nuke pak territory we nuke pak territory.
General : correct
Major: possible 10s and 20s of nukes all on pakistani land.
General: correct
Major: hehehe
General: heheh

I have an alternate line of conversation as well . Not so pretty i must confess. But entirely possible.

 

[trident2010]

MODS: May be its a good time to close the thread. Looks like it has passed its best before date (my opinion)

 

[arbit]

MODS: May be its a good time to close the thread. Looks like it has passed its best before date (my opinion)

Goddamit dont ruin the fun. The debate is just getting started

 

[The Deterrent]

Depends on which country we are talking about.

In case of USA, Russia ..which have massive nuclear strike assets on land, sea and in the air in upwards of Defcon 3 situations. Such a strike will have no effect at all, on enemies second strike capabilities.

In case of countries like China(and in near future India), which have huge land area and sizable portion of nuclear assets deployed at sea, such a strike will only minimize the enemy nuclear response.

But for countries like Pakistan, which has limited land mass(to deploy nukes) and no sea based, air based strike capability (Nuclear bombers which are in the air for indefinite periods like US B-52s). Such a pre-emptive strike can very well eliminate the country's strike capabilities.

Yes, it depends on the country to be attacked.
But what about the aggressor? Does India possess thousands of nuclear weapons with a few hundred survivable ones?
If Pakistan does not have a huge amount of nukes and survivable delivery systems, India too does not have the means to attempt a decapitation strike. Pakistan does have deeply buried secured facilities for enhanced protectio

Other countries have abandoned the tactical nukes, because

1) You are handing over a nuclear weapon to a common soldiers, who in the heat of battle might use it as per his own accord, without a go ahead from higher ups leading to full scale nuclear war.

2) And because you can not gauge the enemy response.. whether enemy will treat tactical nuclear strike against its forces on tactical level or if he will choose to respond on strategic level.

1) Those days are gone when submarine commanders had absolute authority and could launch at will. This is the age of real-time authenticated execution of orders. Just like a B-52 bomber cannot launch nuclear weapons at the crew's will, the soldiers in the battlefield can also not launch without authentication. Permissive Action Links is the keyword here.

2) Yes, you cannot. You are fearful of the enemy's response because it has hundreds of nuclear weapons at nearly ready-to-launch status at all times.
But can the same be said about India and Pakistan? I don't think so.

Pakistan and India are not exactly following the footsteps of USA and USSR.

See USA unlike Pakistan ensured its second strike capabilities will survive Soviet pre-emptive strikes by introducing SLBMs and long range/endurance nuclear bomber before it decided to introduce battlefield nukes in 60s.

Again, India and Pakistan do not have that many nukes to ensure maximum survivability.
The only thing hampering the development of SLBMs by Pakistan is limited resources. But as far as land based weapons are concerned, they are survivable to some extent.

 

[Dushmann]

India should stop worrying about such nuclear scare tactics and have more aggressive policies and we should even keep an option of all out invasion open.
Let's say if Pakistan uses few such short range tactical nukes, why does India even need to respond with our nuclear weapons ? I don't think all our troops will be concentrated in one small area. it will cost few thousand lives, and it sound cruel to say that now but at time of war, if India invades Pakistan that would mean the tensions have already escalated too much and whole country is highly emotionally charged and mentally prepared to accept some sacrifices. from this point on as a rogue nation who used nuclear weapons, Pakistan is potentially completely pariah state, even China can't continue to support them openly (unless India also uses nuclear weapons).
And how many of such nukes can Pakistan use ? the more nuclear weapons they use, the more contamination of their own land and water with radioactive material. If Pakistan nukes their own land, why would India use nukes again, its like wasting missiles to kill a suicide bomber who anyway wants to blow up himself in his own house. Instead India can gain sympathy and still can destroy Pakistan without using any further weapons - remember Pakistan depends on single river system for growing food, (even if India secretly contaminates the waters at source, in the fog of war, it will be blamed on Pakistan's nukes). now look at small country North Korea to know what happens to a pariah country that cannot grow its own food, more than 1/10 the of north Korean population has starved to death and people are resorting to cannibalism. And now imagine 20 crore + people who cannot grow enough food, have been exposed to radioactivity through water, are ostracized by world, are half literate and already known to be violent in nature, what will they do to each other? It might end up causing death of half of Pakistan's population without using our single nuclear weapon.
.
The only other nuclear option Pakistan has is to fire few missiles with faulty guidance systems loaded with unreliable nuclear weapons in hope of damaging few of many hundreds of Indian cities and towns, in return risking complete vaporization of whatever exists of Pakistani civilization.

 

[The Deterrent]

Geheh you think so! We dont agree. We CAN have a different thought process which your planners so conviniently ignore.
Comeon your calculations have gone off the mark before, no self respecting pakistani would deny that.
So what is the guarantee that it will ALL go acc to what YOU believe.

Alright some food for thouht.

It is entirely possible that we have mapped out your territory and posible locations for a nuclear strike. Which are regularly updated as per humint and sat images. Now you strike us first with nukes on paks territory and are sitting plum. A possible conversation might goes like this.

Pak General : bwahaha take that suckers we have nuked you on our soil. Now you cant nuke us.
Pak major : ummm. Why not.
General: cos thats what we think fool. How dare you question our wisdom. Dont you remember kargil? Such a comprehensive victory.
Major: umm.. ok

Meanwhile in indian camp

Indian General : buggers. Nuke their own territory, make their already truncated land some more truncated.
Indian Major: you mean our land did not suffer nuke attack
General: correct
Major: and we can now nuke them?
General: correct
Major: you mean. They nuke pak territory we nuke pak territory.
General : correct
Major: possible 10s and 20s of nukes all on pakistani land.
General: correct
Major: hehehe
General: heheh

I have an alternate line of conversation as well . Not so pretty i must confess. But entirely possible.

We all can imagine our biased scenarios.
At the moment, India cannot ensure a complete decapitation strike. This means that if a few dozen nukes survived the first strike, the retaliation would wreak havoc and hence MAD will be implemented completely.