A rocket is faster and smaller than a plane, thus requires a better missile defense system, and when it comes to maneuverable small projectiles like Nasr, it's even more difficult. That's a fact.
It's not a fact. Speed is not a major factor when SAMs are as fast or faster. RCS matters more, not size of the missile.
Nasr won't have a speed greater than mach 2, and it flies straight.
Not necessarily, these missiles can maneuver and hit their target. Again, simplifying capabilities of others, boy you really don't learn, do you?.
Only cruise missiles do that. You need to learn about ballistic trajectory. The maneuverability of the Nasr is extremely limited, practically non-existent if compared to a fighter.
Any renowned scientist who says Nasr can't maneuver?, I have one saying it can, but then again you won't believe it, would you?.
If you knew physics, you wouldn't be making such stupid posts.
Ever heard of Russo-Georgian war, and what happened to SPYDER?.
You had posted about the war when you were talking about SPYDER, so what was the point?
Which one does India possess?.
Phase 1 BMD.
. Boy have I heard that one before.
Parrikar has also said it.
That statement was in comparison to how you boastfully said
Point was Prahar and Nasr are simply very similar. They are simple ballistic missiles regardless of its payload.
Basically, Prahar is also a nuclear tipped missile. Your leaders are simply tricking you into a false sense of security. You forget that apart from escalation, Prahar can also be used in exactly the same situation on a more vulnerable defensive corps belonging to the PA.
If you have studied even the basics of Cold Start scenario, it says India will use 8 IBGs, and out of those 5 IBGs will attack Pak with the other 3 in reserve. And this is only until the 3 massive strike corps are ready to start their attack.
Basically, this is what Pak believes, or wants its people to believe. The 5 IBGs will attack. Each IBG will have about 5000 men, so it's not much. They can be stopped with Nasr. Of course, because of Nasr, the Indian troops will either fall back or stop their advance. War will end due to international political pressure, so the 3 strike corps will be rendered useless.
But this is what is most likely to happen. IBGs attack. Pak uses Nasr. IBGs have either been stopped, destroyed, or the attacks were ineffective. Due to the nuclear attack, India responds with a strategic strike on all crucial military targets. IBGs with Prahar will retaliate on PA that's on the defensive. Any offensive units of the PA will also be attacked with nukes to stop them. Now, Pak has the choice of escalation by trying to bring in Indian civilian targets. The difference here is Indian cities will be heavily protected by BMD, Pak cities won't.
And the Indian military is so big that it is obvious the most important priority as targets will be military formations. So the biggest Indian cities will most likely be relatively untouched. Successfully dropping one or two nukes on Mumbai won't hurt it.
The aftermath of the war is far more gruesome. Pak will be seen as the aggressor for using WMDs first. Most of the dams and electricity generation capacity, including the electricity grid would be destroyed. Without electricity, most of Pak economy would have gone back to the pre-industrialization era. Not to forget India is a stakeholder in the West's strategy against China, so the West won't allow India's economy to falter. Huge amounts of foreign aid will flow towards India at the expense of Pak.
China won't come to your rescue, that's guaranteed.
And this is not even the worst case scenario for Pak.
