I cannot educate you about nuclear doctrine.
But unlike Kargil, we crossed the border and hit you inside.
Our nukes (yours, ours, the Chinese) are in component form.
We know you did not mobilise then (Kargil) and we know you did not mobilise now.
You reacted.
And then you did not press on.
You can choose to spin it your way.
What I'm telling you is what the Indian side got out of this mission.
Cheers, Doc
I see u r avoiding answering a simple question I asked...u dodging the subject gives me my answer.
I know plenty about nuclear doctrines...unlike u I've read up on that. Based on this I'm telling u that NO NATION on Earth resorts to nuclear weapons as the FIRST thing at the start of the conflict. Can u give me any example from history? U can't bcuz that's how the world works.
The nuclear weapons are ALWAYS sort of an insurance. Any nation that acquires them basically means that if that nation is to go down it will take down its enemy with it...as a LAST RESORT. I don't know if u know this but MAD stands for MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. The reason why Pakistan didn't use it's nuclear weapons so far in conventional conflicts with India is bcuz it was more than capable of taking India on in those battles. Again for the nth time, Pak's nuclear doctrine has ALWAYS been to act as a hedge against Indian conventional superiority just based on its sheer size.
In a prolonged war...eventually India would gain an upper hand conventionally just by throwing more numbers at Pak until Pak can no longer sustain the war effort. If Pak never acquired nuclear weapons then that means an eventual defeat in a conventional war. THIS was the very reason to acquire nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent. If the scenario ever emerges where Pak is unable to sustain a prolonged conventional conflict and all seems lost then in a last ditch effort it will destroy India(while also get destroyed in doing so) with nuclear weapons. This has changed the equation from where India could hope to win at some point eventually to both India and Pak losing horribly.
^This has always been the gist of nuclear doctrines around the world. It is to make sure that ur enemy will go down with u if u ever go down. This then branches off into two types...
Declaration of No First Use policy and the absence of any such declaration (or deliberately announcing a first use policy).
Usually only big nations with huge budgets that have a solid second strike capability with boomers carrying nuclear tipped ballistic(or cruise) missiles in enough quantity to decimate their enemy in addition to a decent conventional war fighting capability(as compared to their enemies) choose this option bcuz they can safely exist without it.
Nations with a not yet complete second strike capability and who face enemies with numerical/conventional superiority don't go for No First Use policy bcuz their very survival depends on letting the enemy know that in the event of a conventional defeat, what awaits u isn't victory but utter destruction.
Now if u have anything of substance to support ur initial argument then post it here for ALL to read so that we may be enlightened by this "new knowledge" u have stumbled upon that was previously unheard of. Otherwise don't bother quoting me.