Just bcuz I joined in 2016 doesn't mean that I didn't exist before 2016. I didn't just materialize out of thin air on the day I joined this forum...just like how u existed and were able to learn things before u became a member of this forum. So what was the point of bringing this up? Absolutely nothing...like ur last post instead of talking substance u tend to create a lot of strawman arguments as if that will somehow prove u knowledgeable.
And this somehow implies that u r knowledgeable? I have yet to see this amazing display of ur knowledge regarding nuclear doctrines. So far u have avoided the subject altogether in ur posts.
Another strawman argument by u. I'm sure there exist many experts out there...compared to them my knowledge is most definitely miniscule. This still however doesn't add any support to ur original argument. I'm still waiting to hear anything of substance from u.
Then plz do show me...show us all what treasure trove of knowledge u have learned from there. It is a defense forum after all...we would all love to learn about such a topic.
I'm not trying to sound intelligent at all. I have clearly stated my argument and stayed on topic instead of going of on unrelated tangents to try and prove my superiority in this regard(everyone can see who is doing that out of the two of us ). What I wrote may very well be textbook 101 but u still haven't been able to counter it.
I do know different levels of threshold that exist...and I told u already. Pak's nuclear weapons have always been a last resort in case there's nothing left to lose. I have clearly stated that Pak will always reply in a conventional manner every time it can. The only time things go nuclear is when Pak is unable to sustain in a conventional manner. An example of this is Pak's development of low yield short range weapons like Nasr. This was a direct response to Indian CSD. Even in case if India is to execute a CSD type of scenario where Pak can respond conventionally that would still be the response...Pak would use Nasr in case where it gets overwhelmed quickly on multiple fronts and conventional options are no longer sufficient.
To sum it all up and repeat myself so maybe u will finally understand and talk substance...even prior to Feb 27 events...Pak's response would always have been a conventional one rather than a nuclear one in any scenario where Pak can respond conventionally in an adequate manner. So what has Feb 27 skirmish changed? Nothing...absolutely nothing.
Sigh ... even more tutoring needed.
Ok ...
One, you do not have a NFU policy. So quit harping on the last resort line. Pakistan's deterrence hinges on no NFU and unpredictability.
Engagements like the 26th and 27th help the enemy suss out your responses and make predictable your doctrine.
Two, battlefield nukes put paid to your last resort argument. They are tactical in nature. Not strategic. They are hardly a nation's last resort. They are the armory of a battlefield brigadier or colonel.
Nuclear warfighting is not nuclear deterrence.
Nuclear 101.
Cheers, Doc
Last edited: