India planned strike on Muridke after Mumbai attacks, Kasuri reveals

[Chinese-Dragon]

How is this relevant as long as nuclear weapons of both Pakistan and India ensure MAD.

20 kiloton fission bombs can't ensure MAD. They can ensure the destruction of a few city blocks, which is very significant but not enough to ensure MAD against a medium-sized country (or larger).

Thermonuclear weapons (for example a regular Chinese nuke is around 4 megatons) are what are needed to ensure MAD.

And since it is claimed that we handed over nuclear weapons designs to Pakistan, and even tested weapons on their behalf, it seems reasonable to say they could have tested-and-true thermonuclear weapons. That's in addition to them already having a much larger nuclear arsenal than India does.

Which are both quite enormous advantages for Pakistan. Not to mention their ENTIRE arsenal is meant for India, they don't have to hold back half their arsenal like India would have to do (as deterrence against China rolling down the Himalayas after the dust has settled).

Apologies accepted!


Nasr was designed on the same basis of Tactical nuclear weapons for NATO, to counter Soviet conventional military superiority. I.e If Indian military enters deep inside Pakistani territory and PA is unable to stop them. However the same would result in full scale nuclear response by India.

LOL you guys can't understand, that is EXACTLY the point.

What else do you infer from a "lowering of the nuclear threshold"? Lowering the nuclear threshold with platforms like Nasr means that an escalation to a nuclear war is much more likely. That's the point. The intent is to deter adversaries from any conventional attack, like the one in the OP. To make them realize a conventional attack can quickly escalate into a full-blown nuclear war, which was my point since the beginning of this thread, and which you are unable to understand.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

What you obviously don't understand is that a 'conventional airstrike on nonstrategic targets' or however you like to sugar coat it, doesn't really mean the same to the other country.
It means you are entering their territory. In other words it means war and as the saying goes 'everything is fair in love and war'. Whatever way Pakistan would have decided to respond, nuclear or conventional.

Pakistani military planners would not agree with you, if you are suggesting there would a nuclear response any conventional airstrike from India , what is the point of Pakistan maintain such a large conventional military? , when the only other threat Pakistan faces is insurgents like TTP.

You would not have had any place to go crying to or complain. Which is why your high powered delegation thought its better to take advise than to jump into destruction which I would say, was wise of them. Its as simple as that.

The news source at this point remains unconfirmed, as there is no other source reporting the same.

20 kt fission bombs can't ensure MAD. They can ensure the destruction of a few city blocks, which is very significant but not enough to ensure MAD against a medium-sized country (or larger).Thermonuclear weapons (for example a regular Chinese nuke is around 4 megatons) are what are needed to ensure MAD.

Proof?

And since it is claimed that we handed over nuclear weapons designs to Pakistan, and even tested weapons on their behalf, it seems reasonable to say they could have tested-and-true thermonuclear weapons. That's in addition to them already having a much larger nuclear arsenal than India does.
LOL you guys can't understand, that is EXACTLY the point.
What else do you infer from a "lowering of the nuclear threshold"? Lowering the nuclear threshold with platforms like Nasr means that an escalation to a nuclear war is much more likely. That's the point. The intent is to deter adversaries from any conventional attack, like the one in the OP. To make them realize a conventional attack can quickly escalate into a full-blown nuclear war, which was my point since the beginning of this thread, and which you are unable to understand.

Seems like you missed my point. Nasr comes with the assumption that India will not retaliate with full nuclear response, which the Indian nuclear doctrine states otherwise.Which is a big gamble for ones firing Nasr.

 

[Shot-Caller]

Pakistani military planners would not agree with you, if you are suggesting there would a nuclear response any conventional airstrike from India , what is the point of Pakistan maintain such a large conventional military? , when the only other threat Pakistan faces is insurgents like TTP.

Our military is still 4 times smaller than India. That is a fact. due to lower defense budget lower population and obviously less land to defend. We need nukes to protect ourselves and there is a reason we have the first use policy. Though the chances are very slim since Indian top leadership realizes the fact that what would come out of it is nothing but destruction on both sides. Still, the possibility can not be ruled out in case things escalate. This current government in India needs to realize this fact and stay calm on LOC, shelling on civillians won't help, 11 dead so far, because as kasuri mentioned nobody can predict how quickly things may escalate between these two nuclear armed neighbours.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Proof?

Seems like you missed my point. Nasr comes with the assumption that India will not retaliate with full nuclear response, which the Indian nuclear doctrine states otherwise.Which is a big gamble for ones firing Nasr.

This is basic stuff man, just check the radius of a nuclear explosion. The chart in the link below conveniently lists the effects of a 20 kiloton warhead.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would destroy a few city blocks. But nowhere close to leveling a large city, for that you need thermonuclear weapons in the range of several megatons.

Which is what China had in the 1960's, which Pakistan might have today, and which India does not. All of India's test yields are a matter of official record, and they have nothing more than the most basic fission devices (biggest claimed yield of 45 kt, but international experts estimate it at no more than 20 kt).

Whereas it is claimed that China tested warheads on Pakistan's behalf, so they could have anything.

Proof?

Seems like you missed my point. Nasr comes with the assumption that India will not retaliate with full nuclear response, which the Indian nuclear doctrine states otherwise.Which is a big gamble for ones firing Nasr.

Wrong again.

"Lowering the nuclear threshold" means lowering the necessary requirements for a nuclear war. Nasr is a platform designed to lower the nuclear threshold, in order to deter conventional attacks. The rationale is that with such platforms, it would be MUCH easier to "escalate" from a conventional conflict into a nuclear one.

India has made it clear to everyone that the use of Nasr means a full-scale nuclear retaliation. So if it comes to a point where Pakistan wants to use Nasr, they might as well start with a full-scale "first strike" because they know India will respond with a full-scale strike. And they have a "First Use" policy as well as a much larger nuclear arsenal, there is a good chance that they can take out the majority of Indian nukes before they are launched.

 

[SirHatesALot]

as well as a much larger nuclear arsenal, there is a good chance that they can take out the majority of Indian nukes before they are launched.

lol are you serious?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

lol are you serious?

Sure.

India's sea-based deterrent is not operational yet.

Pakistan has a "First strike" policy. And a much larger nuclear arsenal than India. Since they can commit to a First Strike, they can take out the majority of India's nukes (not to mention Command and Control centers) before they are launched.

India will probably have enough left over for some kind of a counter strike, but it won't be much in comparison. And they'll have to save at least half of what they have left over to deter China from rolling down the Himalayas after the dust has settled.

And since it is so often claimed that China has tested warheads on Pakistan's behalf, there is also a good chance that Pakistan has thermonuclear technology which would put them even further above India.

 

[SirHatesALot]

Sure.

India's sea-based deterrent is not operational yet.

Pakistan has a "First strike" policy. And a much larger nuclear arsenal than India. Since they can commit to a First Strike, they can take out the majority of India's nukes (not to mention Command and Control centers) before they are launched.

India will probably have enough left over for some kind of a counter strike, but it won't be much in comparison.

LOL do you even know how much time does it takes to prepare for that kind of nuclear strikes?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

LOL do you even know how much time does it takes to prepare for that kind of nuclear strikes?

They have a "First Strike" policy. So obviously they will have some way to implement it.

 

[SirHatesALot]

They have a "First Strike" policy. So obviously they will have some way to implement it.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

No response? Kind of expected.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Our military is still 4 times smaller than India. That is a fact. due to lower defense budget lower population and obviously less land to defend. We need nukes to protect ourselves and there is a reason we have the first use policy. Though the chances are very slim since Indian top leadership realizes the fact that what would come out of it is nothing but destruction on both sides. Still, the possibility can not be ruled out in case things escalate. This current government in India needs to realize this fact and stay calm on LOC, shelling on civillians won't help, 11 dead so far, because as kasuri mentioned nobody can predict how quickly things may escalate between these two nuclear armed neighbours.

You missed my point, If Pakistan is so satisfied with nuclear response, why maintain a strong conventional force,against India?

This is basic stuff man, just check the radius of a nuclear explosion. The chart in the link below conveniently lists the effects of a 20 kiloton warhead.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would destroy a few city blocks. But nowhere close to leveling a large city, for that you need thermonuclear weapons in the range of several megatons.

Which is what China had in the 1960's, which Pakistan might have today, and which India does not. All of India's test yields are a matter of official record, and they have nothing more than the most basic fission devices (biggest claimed yield of 45 kt, but international experts estimate it at no more than 20 kt).

Whereas it is claimed that China tested warheads on Pakistan's behalf, so they could have anything.

I found no sources suggesting 20kt would not be sufficient for achieving MAD.

Also a 20kt may not level an entire city , but the secondary fires from the nuclear explosion do destroy the city.

Secondary fires started by broken gas mains, electrical short circuits, etc., can considerably amplify the overall effects of a nuclear detonation.

http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm


MAD would be a matter of perception between India and Pakistan of what is tolerable level of losses i.e for Pakistan if 80-100 Nagasakis are considered full destruction.

Wrong again.
"Lowering the nuclear threshold" means lowering the necessary requirements for a nuclear war. Nasr is a platform designed to lower the nuclear threshold, in order to deter conventional attacks. The rationale is that with such platforms, it would be MUCH easier to "escalate" from a conventional conflict into a nuclear one.

India has made it clear to everyone that the use of Nasr means a full-scale nuclear retaliation.

Indian nuclear doctrine stating the below was made public in 2003 long before Nasr was tested

Main Features of India’s Nuclear Doctrine:
The main features of India’s nuclear doctrine were summarized as follows in the CCS press release of January 4th 2003:

1. Building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent;
2. A “No First Use” posture; nuclear weapons to be used only “in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere”;

Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Is it necessary? | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

So if it comes to a point where Pakistan wants to use Nasr, they might as well start with a full-scale "first strike" because they know India will respond with a full-scale strike. And they have a "First Use" policy as well as a much larger nuclear arsenal, there is a good chance that they can take out the majority of Indian nukes before they are launched.

Hence my original point, Nasr does little to change nuclear dynamics in the region and Pakistan firing Nasr is big gamble.

 

[Shot-Caller]

You missed my point, If Pakistan is so satisfied with nuclear response, why maintain a strong conventional force,against India?

That is pretty simple to figure out. We were not a nuclear power since 1947. We kept a well trained and strong conventional army that has been growing in numbers since. So now that we have nukes it doesn't mean we don't need the army. You cannot nuke terrorist hideouts which exist in your own country. Plus having hostile neighbours requires us to keep strong army and efficient intelligence agencies.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Hence my original point, Nasr does little to change nuclear dynamics in the region and Pakistan firing Nasr is big gamble.

Again, the point of Nasr is to lower the nuclear threshold, i.e. to make "escalation" into a full-blown nuclear war much faster.

The point of lowering the nuclear threshold is deterrence against conventional attacks. So that even a small-scale conventional attack could escalate very quickly, and end up in a situation where Nasr may be used. And since they know India's policy against Nasr is a retaliatory full-scale strike, they are incentivized to do a First Strike of their own (in this case Nasr may never be used... it has already served its purpose). In order to destroy as many Indian nukes as possible before they are launched.

So there is a good chance Nasr may never actually be used, which is irrelevant since it has already achieved its intended goal (lowering the nuclear threshold). If there ever is a situation where Nasr may be used, Pakistan is likely to forget about Nasr and commit to a full First Strike instead. Since both ways will end up in a full-scale nuclear war, they are likely to press their First Strike advantage.

Again, Nasr is meant to lower the nuclear threshold. The actual fighting is unlikely to involve Nasr at all, since any conceivable situation where Nasr would be used, it would be more logical to commit to a full-scale nuclear attack to begin with. Instead of just firing Nasr and waiting for the Indian nuclear response, which would be completely illogical.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

That is pretty simple to figure out. We were not a nuclear power since 1947. We kept a well trained and strong conventional army that has been growing in numbers since. So now that we have nukes it doesn't mean we don't need the army. You cannot nuke terrorist hideouts which exist in your own country. Plus having hostile neighbours requires us to keep strong army and efficient intelligence agencies.

The General perception PA is stronger than it needs to be, if its operations are only against terrorists.

 

[Post Colonnial]

The nukes will never be used in India and Pakistan. Chinese can dream on but the next Chinese people's revolution would have occurred before any even medium level conflict occurs between Pakistan and India.