Najam Khan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 8
Nuclear weapons need to be factored OUT in the war plan. We have deterrence as India knows we have those physics packages, and will invent new tactics to work under the nuclear rubicon, and we should be prepared to counter those.
Nasr isn't PAF's weapon, let's leave it out too. I know all services will fight in a war, but PAF would do what PAF is designed to do, and firing ('shooting' in an airforce jargon!) a Nasr isn't part of that.
Firstly who says that Nukes will be used in war? Why are we pushing so hard on this when we know we won't/can't deliver them?..assuming stuff is one thing but considering limitations of such weapons is another. We believe that our Nuclear weapons are the weapons of last resort, but whats the purpose of investing so much money in the tactical nuclear weapons when we are assuming that our Nuclear threshold WILL NOT be crossed by enemy? Why remain in such khush fehmi and keep on relying on conventional weapons only?
I'll clarify if it sounded as if Nasr is PAF's weapon when I said that it is 'an indirect answer' to MMRCA. What I meant was that there is a need to look at the bigger picture of the strategic edge achieved by India and to deny it the space to launch a limited war under the nuclear overhang. Its Pakistan's strategic forces that is and will decide its delivery....I hope its clear now!