Hatf-IX - Tactical Multi-Tube Ballistic Missile

[hataf]

can we sell it to friendly countries ????

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Both Pakistan's and later India's tact nukes will fall on Pakistani soil. I can live with that.

India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.

The whole point of deploying and potentially using tactical nukes on Pakistani soil by Pakistan is that it makes it very hard for India to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike on Pakistani soil, since a country has every right to use all possible means to destroy invaders. Were Pakistan to use tactical nukes on Indian soil, then that would be a different situation.

 

[KS]

India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.

The whole point of deploying and potentially using tactical nukes on Pakistani soil by Pakistan is that it makes it very hard for India to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike on Pakistani soil, since a country has every right to use all possible means to destroy invaders. Were Pakistan to use tactical nukes on Indian soil, then that would be a different situation.

I don't know how you can 'justify' using nukes against an Indian invasion if its in response to another terror strike (as I cant think any other situation in which India intiates operations) as India can essentially argue that the 'terror' strike is in itself an act of war and it is only retaliating.

But anyhow all these does not matter as the declared Indian NFU is quite clear in this regard --- Nasr or Shaheen --- 0.5 kT or 500 kT --- Indian soil or Pakistani soil --- an usage of nuke against Indian assets (read Army,City.....) will be treated as a Nuclear First Attack on India and the response will be according to our doctrine - massive and disproportionate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't know how you can 'justify' using nukes against an Indian invasion if its in response to another terror strike (as I cant think any other situation in which India intiates operations) as India can essentially argue that the 'terror' strike is in itself an act of war and it is only retaliating.

But using your logic you could also then extend the argument and say 'how can you justify using ANY weapons against an Indian invasion if it is in response to another terror strike' - that is an absurd argument. The State of Pakistan will not be responsible or complicit in any terror strike in India, so why should we not retaliate against an illegal and unjustified invasion of Pakistani territory with any and all means necessary?

Again, the weapons will be used on Pakistani soil, the radiation, fallout and after effects will be primarily Pakistan's problem - for India to respond in kind by launching nukes at Pakistan will be a major, major escalation in terms of using nukes against another nation's territory, and will escalate into full fledged nuclear war with Pakistan then launching nukes at Indian cities and military targets. Indian planners will have to think long and hard about taking the first step of attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.

But anyhow all these does not matter as the declared Indian NFU is quite clear in this regard --- Nasr or Shaheen --- 0.5 kT or 500 kT --- Indian soil or Pakistani soil --- an usage of nuke against Indian assets (read Army,City.....) will be treated as a Nuclear First Attack on India and the response will be according to our doctrine - massive and disproportionate.

Does not matter what your doctrine states - understand what will happen and the implications of an Indian nuclear strike on Pakistani territory.

 

[Bang Galore]

India using nukes, tactical or otherwise, on Pakistan soil will invite nuclear strikes on Indian soil, which you cannot 'live with'. Indian decision makers will have to think long and hard about whether they want to invite nuclear strikes on their military and civilian targets in India by launching nukes at Pakistan - so long as Pakistan restricts the use of tactical nukes to its own soil against an invading army, India will have a hard time responding in kind and escalating the war into a full fledged nuclear exchange.

The whole point of deploying and potentially using tactical nukes on Pakistani soil by Pakistan is that it makes it very hard for India to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike on Pakistani soil, since a country has every right to use all possible means to destroy invaders. Were Pakistan to use tactical nukes on Indian soil, then that would be a different situation.

The argument works both ways. How can Pakistan be sure of the type of reaction that India may have to the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" even if it is carried out on Pakistani soil. Wouldn't Pakistan be thinking long & hard before doing something that might invite complete annihilation if they guessed wrong? India might not see the use of a tactical nuclear weapon as a one off & might retaliate immediately with a massive strike. Whether or not enough of Pakistani second strike capabilities remain in place after the Indian strike, Pakistan might have essentially been destroyed. Whether or not India too is devastated, Pakistan would have paid a heavy price for her rash decisions.

I'm always surprised that Pakistani members assume that India will always act with discretion on the nuclear front while they continue to insist that they will somehow behave like crazies with their bomb & get away with it.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

indian are well aware of the implications of attacking us first; and that is why all they do is talk the talk --something theyve been good at for some time now.

but i think the timing and the response itself was appropriate to put to rest the notion among some hindudeshis that CSD is a feasible and applicable doctrine

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The argument works both ways. How can Pakistan be sure of the type of reaction that India may have to the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" even if it is carried out on Pakistani soil.

Because it will then be India that is taking the first step of escalating into full fledged nuclear war by attacking Pakistani territory with nuclear weapons. There is simply no parallel between a nation using any weapons necessary on its own soil to defend against invasion and a nation attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't Pakistan be thinking long & hard before doing something that might invite complete annihilation if they guessed wrong? India might not see the use of a tactical nuclear weapon as a one off & might retaliate immediately with a massive strike.

Indian use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan soil, without a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian soil, would mean India does not have a NFU policy, and India would be responsible for escalating into full fledged nuclear war.

India cannot set conditions for the type of response Pakistan can employ on its own soil in response to an India invasion. If that were the case, then what is to stop India from threatening to use nukes if its IBG's are destroyed by conventional weapons? Pakistan's objective will be the same whether it restricts itself to conventional or unconventional weapons - destroy the Indian IBG's and their supply lines inside Pakistani territory. India cannot dictate what we use on our own soil.

Whether or not enough of Pakistani second strike capabilities remain in place after the Indian strike, Pakistan might have essentially been destroyed. Whether or not India too is devastated, Pakistan would have paid a heavy price for her rash decisions.

Pakistan would be prepared for an Indian nuclear first strike on Pakistani territory with missiles deployed. Indian missile launches will be detected and responded to. India does not have the capability (not even close) at the moment to obliterate Pakistan or destroy anywhere close to all of its nuclear assets. India will suffer from a retaliatory nuclear strike on its soil if it chooses to launch nukes at Pakistan.

I'm always surprised that Pakistani members assume that India will always act with discretion on the nuclear front while they continue to insist that they will somehow behave like crazies with their bomb & get away with it.

Actually in this scenario it is more a case of Indians thinking Pakistan will 'act with discretion' in the face of an Indian invasion and not use any and all means at its disposal to destroy the invaders. Again, another nation cannot dictate what means Pakistan uses to attack an invader on its soil, otherwise you'll end up limiting us to using 'sticks and stones'.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I'm always surprised that Pakistani members assume that India will always act with discretion on the nuclear front while they continue to insist that they will somehow behave like crazies with their bomb & get away with it.

Battle of Chawinda --- a few Pakistani jawans, who were very modestly equipped, strapped dynamite to their chests and blew up indian tanks to smithereens killing the crew inside. Those who weren't killed were taken POWs. A similar fate would meet a vast majority of the other invading armoured columns.


Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

 

[IndianArmy]

Battle of Chawinda --- a few Pakistani jawans, who were very modestly equipped, strapped dynamite to their chests and blew up indian tanks to smithereens killing the crew inside. A similar fate would meet a vast majority of the other invading armoured columns.


Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

Suicide is never termed Sacrifice.... A Soldier is entitled to give life, but he is never trained to give it up so easily.... Kamikaze or Banzai charge Tactic....I am sorry If I sound negative, you can Reason it for me...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Suicide is never termed Sacrifice.... A Soldier is entitled to give life, but he is never trained to give it up so easily.... Kamikaze Tactic....I am sorry If I sound negative, you can Reason it for me...

for the sake of protecting the sacred soil, any employable tactic is justified. I fundamentally and in all terms disagree with you.

they are heros -- and the fact that they helped turn the battle in Pakistani favour is a testament to that. We digress, but the point of my post was that indian through past and ongoing events would be aware that we are willing to go through great lengths -- ANY length -- for the defence of our sacred land against the enemy. A soldier isn't worth his blood and salt otherwise. And every soldier in Pakistan is always ready and prepared for war at any time.






p.s. those tamil rebels you indians supported were experts at kamikaze attacks, no?

 

[Bang Galore]

Because it will then be India that is taking the first step of escalating into full fledged nuclear war by attacking Pakistani territory with nuclear weapons. There is simply no parallel between a nation using any weapons necessary on its own soil to defend against invasion and a nation attacking another nation's territory with nuclear weapons.

There is simply no parallel to any nation using tactical nuclear weapons. Other parallels simply fly out of the window once that happens. My point is that Pakistan can be no more certain of India's response than India can supposedly be of Pakistan's response.

Indian use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan soil, without a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian soil, would mean India does not have a NFU policy, and India would be responsible for escalating into full fledged nuclear war.

Indian policy simply states that an use of a nuclear weapon against any Indian asset would constitute a first strike. The scenario under discussion fits that standard.

India cannot set conditions for the type of response Pakistan can employ on its own soil in response to an India invasion. If that were the case, then what is to stop India from threatening to use nukes if its IBG's are destroyed by conventional weapons? Pakistan's objective will be the same whether it restricts itself to conventional or unconventional weapons - destroy the Indian IBG's and their supply lines inside Pakistani territory. India cannot dictate what we use on our own soil.

No issue with Pakistan's objectives but possible Indian retaliation will have to be factored in as a unknown variable.

Pakistan would be prepared for an Indian nuclear first strike on Pakistani territory with missiles deployed. Indian missile launches will be detected and responded to. India does not have the capability (not even close) at the moment to obliterate Pakistan or destroy anywhere close to all of its nuclear assets. India will suffer from a retaliatory nuclear strike on its soil if it chooses to launch nukes at Pakistan.

Preparations are never an one way street. You can safely assume that Indian planners too would have factored in a possible nuclear strike & their responses before starting any operation. As for India suffering a retaliatory strike on its soil, that would be poor consolation for what would be left of Pakistan. My point is simple; Pakistan has to factor an Indian response in its plans & then decide whether the risk is worth taking. In any case, we are talking about limited breaches into Pakistani territory here. If Pakistan lowers its nuclear threshold, then it must be prepared for consequences that such actions might invite.

Actually in this scenario it is more a case of Indians thinking Pakistan will 'act with discretion' in the face of an Indian invasion and not use any and all means at its disposal to destroy the invaders. Again, another nation cannot dictate what means Pakistan uses to attack an invader on its soil, otherwise you'll end up limiting us to using 'sticks and stones'.

If & when India moves against Pakistan, it would be because they have decided that the threat of a nuclear war; however terrifying is somehow more acceptable than suffering a terror strike originating in Pakistan (I'm assuming that the Indian action would follow an unbearable terrorist strike). essentially India would have called Pakistan's nuclear bluff in such a situation & would come prepared for such an eventuality. Pakistan has to then decide whether the Indian actions are worth risking complete (or close) annihilation since India has already made that decision when it decides to act.

 

[IndianArmy]

for the sake of protecting the sacred soil, any employable tactic is justified. I fundamentally disagree with you.

they are heros -- and the fact that they helped turn the battle in Pakistani favour is a testament to that. We digress, but the point of my post was that indian through past and ongoing events would be aware that we are willing to go through great lengths -- ANY length -- for the defence of our sacred land against the enemy. A soldier isn't worth his blood and salt otherwise. And every soldier in Pakistan is always ready and prepared for war at any time.

Indeed a Honorable Duty..I am Intending to stop here as I have totally different view points on general tactics and Battle formations... I completely do not Favor this concept, Even though Geneva Convention is Silent on this, This is not considered as professionalism , But again Nothing is fair in Love and War as was said by some wise man..

Show Me One Proof which states Indian Army Supported Tamil Rebels?

 

[Thorough Pro]

So do you believe these online Indians over the Indian Military ?

I would not.

Neither does any one in Pakistan, they both arre liers.

 

[Manticore]

_________________________MISSILE
A missile is a guided weapon having the ability to control its trajectory. It may or may not be propelled by a rocket.
Many (but not all) guided missiles use rockets as their principal source of propulsion eg sidewinder





______________________BASED ON TRAJECTORY

* A quasi ballistic missile (also called a semi ballistic missile) is a category of missile that has a low trajectory and/or is largely ballistic but can perform maneuvers in flight or make unexpected changes in direction and range.

At a lower trajectory than a ballistic missile, a quasi ballistic missile can maintain higher speed, thus allowing its target less time to react to the attack, at the cost of reduced range.

* A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target.

* cruise missilies are terrain hugging missiles which are self-navigating, and can fly on a non-ballistic, extremely low altitude trajectory


_______________________BASED ON RANGE

*tactical ballistic missile : range is less than 300 kilometres
*(BRBM): Range less than 200 km
*(TBM): Range between 300 km and 3500 km
*(SRBM): Range 1000 km or less
*(MRBM): Range between 1000 km and 3500 km
*(IRBM) or long-range ballistic missile (LRBM): Range between 3500 km and 5500 km
*(ICBM): Range greater than 5500 km
*(SLBM): Launched from ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), all current designs have intercontinental range.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rockets

Once thrown, there is no further correction for the trajectory of that rocket

The term "rocket" has been used ever since the Chinese first built them with black powder 500 years (?) ago even though they relied on the oxygen in the air to burn. In modern day dialogues, the use of the word "rocket" implies that a liquid fueled engine has it's own oxidizer on board, typically LOX. But not always.

Solid fueled boosters are said to use a propellent that contains it's own oxidizer so the inconsistency spreads the confusion. They too are rockets but we call them "boosters". Why? I haven't a clue!




projectile, bullet
Cannon shells are referred to as "projectiles" or "shells" when over a certain diameter and bullets when smaller.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/104441-quasi-ballistic-missiles.html#post1685955

 

[KS]

Battle of Chawinda --- a few Pakistani jawans, who were very modestly equipped, strapped dynamite to their chests and blew up indian tanks to smithereens killing the crew inside. Those who weren't killed were taken POWs. A similar fate would meet a vast majority of the other invading armoured columns.


Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

Good for you. But we Indians go by Gen.Patton's words, if you know what I mean.

f
p.s. those tamil rebels you indians supported were experts at kamikaze attacks, no?

We did not train them in that. They learned it from their Syrian counterparts.