India’s nuclear logic

[Bang Galore]

First of all, there is no White Paper released by the Indian Government outlining its stance regarding a tactical nuke strike. This article represents the opinion of an Ex Foreign Secretary, so far the Indian Government has officially been ambiguous regarding this scenario.

Not just an ex-FS but an advisor to the PM on nuclear matters. It would be reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about.

Lets brainstorm and try to find out under what scenarios NASR will be used. I reckon it will be used as a warning shot if the IA manages to destroy a huge chunk of PA's Armour, breaks through the N5 highway effectively cutting off Karachi-Islamabad Axis, and is advancing towards Islamabad. PA fires a tactical nuke while giving out the orders to start assembling a strategic nuke. Once PA fires that nuke, it would be up to India whether she chooses to exercise the option of MAD or chooses to withdraw her forces from Pakistan. Thus, Pakistan leaves the ball in India's court on which course of action she want

Not at all, the use of NASR ensures that there might be hope that India might not choose to exercise MAD. I have a hard time believing that India will risk frying up its entire country for the sake of an Armoured Column, i just cannot get my head around this.

This narrative is both confused & incomplete. Any Indian thrust into Pakistan would not happen in isolation. It would follow a terrorist attack of such severity that Indian leaders, both civilian & military decide is intolerable & necessitates an Indian response. In such a scenario, it is reasonable to expect that Pakistani nuclear posture has been factored in & if the response still moves on, that attendant risks have been factored into the response & India still feels necessary to continue. A sort of "Better to risk a terrible end than suffer terror without end".. In such circumstances, no Pakistan planner can have the luxury of assuming that India would not be fully prepared to escalate if Pakistan exercised any type of a nuclear option.

It is not just about an armoured column, it is the nature of the attack that causes the armoured column to be there in the first place. Having committed to an attack , Pakistani planners simply cannot assume that India will not up the ante. Regardless of whether India opts for a full blown nuclear strike in response to a Pakistani use of a battlefield nuke, I find it laughable that you believe there exists any possibility that India will simply absorb a nuclear strike with the losses and walk away. That is in the realm of dreams. At the bare minimum, India would respond with a similar nuclear strike on selected Pakistani targets. That would be two nuclear explosions over Pakistan. Would Pakistan take that quietly or escalate matters incurring a response from an enemy who has already proven his intention to escalate matters by the very nature of the offensive itself? No matter how it plays out, there is simply no way Pakistan can come out on top.

Pakistani planners, having had their bluff called would face a stark choice. Knowing that the enemy has come prepared to escalate matters, would Pakistan risk a tactical nuke when the stated response to that would be an equivalent of a large scale first strike? If an armoured column is deep in Pakistan, it would be reasonable to assume that Indian forces have established air dominance and Pakistan detection abilities have been degraded substantially. Pakistani planners also have to factor in a possible maturity of an ABM system in India which could theoretical be behind the attack by Indian forces (not discussing efficacy or otherwise, simply that it would have to be a factor that needs to taken into account) and whether Pakistan with diminished capabilities can risk a tactical nuke being responded to by a larger strike, putting (from the Pakistani point of view) MAD into question.

I also would like to respond to your point on Pakistani simultaneously preparing it's strategic weapons before using a tactical one. Would that not risk misinterpretation (considering how you say it cannot be hidden) of intentions & risk a large first strike even before deployment of a tactical weapon (no first strike theory having been put out to the dogs)?

Simply far too many variables to risk such an use( assuming logical heads are doing the thinking).

 

[notorious_eagle]

Not just an ex-FS but an advisor to the PM on nuclear matters. It would be reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about.

Okay

This narrative is both confused & incomplete. Any Indian thrust into Pakistan would not happen in isolation. It would follow a terrorist attack of such severity that Indian leaders, both civilian & military decide is intolerable & necessitates an Indian response. In such a scenario, it is reasonable to expect that Pakistani nuclear posture has been factored in & if the response still moves on, that attendant risks have been factored into the response & India still feels necessary to continue. A sort of "Better to risk a terrible end than suffer terror without end".. In such circumstances, no Pakistan planner can have the luxury of assuming that India would not be fully prepared to escalate if Pakistan exercised any type of a nuclear option.

This is where your narrative falls apart, India cannot factor in Pakistan's nuclear threshold because it has been ambiguous on purpose. It appears that your war planners have not been able to factor in Pakistan's response, that is why despite numerous deployments/counter deployments and skirmishes, they have not pushed hostilities beyond a certain threshold. Pakistani planners are not planning there operational deployments based on assumptions, they are basing it on hard cold facts, they are based on not what the enemy will do but rather on what the enemy can do.

It is not just about an armoured column, it is the nature of the attack that causes the armoured column to be there in the first place. Having committed to an attack , Pakistani planners simply cannot assume that India will not up the ante. Regardless of whether India opts for a full blown nuclear strike in response to a Pakistani use of a battlefield nuke, I find it laughable that you believe there exists any possibility that India will simply absorb a nuclear strike with the losses and walk away. That is in the realm of dreams. At the bare minimum, India would respond with a similar nuclear strike on selected Pakistani targets. That would be two nuclear explosions over Pakistan. Would Pakistan take that quietly or escalate matters incurring a response from an enemy who has already proven his intention to escalate matters by the very nature of the offensive itself? No matter how it plays out, there is simply no way Pakistan can come out on top.

As i said before, Pakistan is not assuming anything, it is basing its operational deployments on what the enemy can do. If India chooses to escalate the conflict and cross Pakistan's Nuclear Red Lines, Pakistan has the capability to match India's escalation. If India is willing to escalate the conflict from battlefield nukes to strategic nukes, than so be it. It is laughable that you think that Pakistan will allow India to degrade its economic, military or political assets without inviting a tactical nuclear strike. If Pakistan has spent millions of dollars developing this new weapons system, believe me Pakistan will use it if the situation warrants for it. Neither India nor Pakistan come out on top, they both will be the losers if the nuclear threshold is crossed.

Pakistani planners, having had their bluff called would face a stark choice.

You need to understand something, when it comes to the sanctity of the Motherland, PA does not bluff. You should know better by now after the fiasco of Operation Parakaram and Post Mumbai Military Build Up. Pakistan called India's bluff of surgical and military strikes. Pakistan mobilized and mobilized fast, it would be foolish on your end to think that Pakistan bluffs when it comes to the sanctity of her territory.

Knowing that the enemy has come prepared to escalate matters, would Pakistan risk a tactical nuke when the stated response to that would be an equivalent of a large scale first strike? If an armoured column is deep in Pakistan, it would be reasonable to assume that Indian forces have established air dominance and Pakistan detection abilities have been degraded substantially. Pakistani planners also have to factor in a possible maturity of an ABM system in India which could theoretical be behind the attack by Indian forces (not discussing efficacy or otherwise, simply that it would have to be a factor that needs to taken into account) and whether Pakistan with diminished capabilities can risk a tactical nuke being responded to by a larger strike, putting (from the Pakistani point of view) MAD into question.

The purpose of the nuke from what i can understand is to fire a warning shot, which communicates that PA is dead serious and India is on the verge of crossing its Nuclear Red Line. The primary purpose is not to cause destruction, the purpose is to deliver a message.

I also would like to respond to your point on Pakistani simultaneously preparing it's strategic weapons before using a tactical one. Would that not risk misinterpretation (considering how you say it cannot be hidden) of intentions & risk a large first strike even before deployment of a tactical weapon (no first strike theory having been put out to the dogs)?

Could be, in a military showdown many hypotheticals exist and this could be one of them. From what i can gather, the purpose of assembling a strategic nuke would be to communicate to India that Pakistan will not be caught off guard.

Simply far too many variables to risk such an use( assuming logical heads are doing the thinking).

There are always many variables in a war. Pakistan's nukes are under the authority of National Command Authority, a highly respected institution lead by an equally competent officer. It is safe to assume that if they decide to launch a tactical nuke, it would be done after carefully reviewing the situation on ground.

 

[Bang Galore]

This is where your narrative falls apart, India cannot factor in Pakistan's nuclear threshold because it has been ambiguous on purpose. It appears that your war planners have not been able to factor in Pakistan's response, that is why despite numerous deployments/counter deployments and skirmishes, they have not pushed hostilities beyond a certain threshold. Pakistani planners are not planning there operational deployments based on assumptions, they are basing it on hard cold facts, they are based on not what the enemy will do but rather on what the enemy can do.

My point actually. Indian planners have so far not pushed because as you say they are not willing to risk escalation. What would it then say when Indian forces have still decided to attack? That they are fully prepared to take that risk head on?

As i said before, Pakistan is not assuming anything, it is basing its operational deployments on what the enemy can do. If India chooses to escalate the conflict and cross Pakistan's Nuclear Red Lines, Pakistan has the capability to match India's escalation. If India is willing to escalate the conflict from battlefield nukes to strategic nukes, than so be it. It is laughable that you think that Pakistan will allow India to degrade its economic, military or political assets without inviting a tactical nuclear strike. If Pakistan has spent millions of dollars developing this new weapons system, believe me Pakistan will use it if the situation warrants for it. Neither India nor Pakistan come out on top, they both will be the losers if the nuclear threshold is crossed.

Degradation will happen in the initial contacts itself, far before any armoured thrust comes rumbling in. If you believe that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in that situation, then it would have to be on Indian territory itself & very early in the conflict. That will invite a guaranteed response anyways. Indian armour isn't about to roll into Pakistan without establishing some sort of an aerial superiority. What you are suggesting seems more like nuke as a first weapon & then it certainly won't be Nasr. Indian planners have some understanding in what constitutes Pakistan's red lines. They are unlikely to seriously threaten that, preferring instead to remain within their limits. That is btw, the cold start doctrine. It is not to aim for an all out victory. Many, here & elsewhere have suggested that Nasr could be used in the very initial stages as a field weapon if Pakistan faces even limited reverses. That is what is in discussion here..

You need to understand something, when it comes to the sanctity of the Motherland, PA does not bluff. You should know better by now after the fiasco of Operation Parakaram and Post Mumbai Military Build Up. Pakistan called India's bluff of surgical and military strikes. Pakistan mobilized and mobilized fast, it would be foolish on your end to think that Pakistan bluffs when it comes to the sanctity of her territory.

Everyone bluffs, no one is talking about Pakistan Army willingness to defend but any ambiguous posture is there for a reason. Once that bluff has been called, it has to be decided whether to act on that or rethink the position. That is common sense. (Parakram achieved limited objectives including a crackdown even if temporary, on terror groups, the failure to obtain overwhelming advantage was why cold start was theorised. There was no build up after Mumbai)
The bluff here is in keeping the use of a nuke ambiguous, there is nothing to do once it has been called. An Pakistani determination to escalate matters when the conflict is still around the border is moot. It is not as simple as you suggest when you say PA does not bluff. A nuclear weapon use will invite retaliation and PA is not run by suicidal fools anymore than the IA is.

The purpose of the nuke from what i can understand is to fire a warning shot, which communicates that PA is dead serious and India is on the verge of crossing its Nuclear Red Line. The primary purpose is not to cause destruction, the purpose is to deliver a message.

The armour rolling is also delivering a message. No need to believe that your message will be better received than ours. An attack on Indian assets will invite retaliatory action, that is cold military logic. Unless you too believe that Indians lack testicular fortitude to use nukes after showing enough to send armour rolling in.

Could be, in a military showdown many hypotheticals exist and this could be one of them. From what i can gather, the purpose of assembling a strategic nuke would be to communicate to India that Pakistan will not be caught off guard.

Messages are many. You do understand that an Indian attack, keeping in mind India's reticence thus far would indicate an determination to deal with an issue.

There are always many variables in a war. Pakistan's nukes are under the authority of National Command Authority, a highly respected institution lead by an equally competent officer. It is safe to assume that if they decide to launch a tactical nuke, it would be done after carefully reviewing the situation on ground.

My point. Any use will invite a response, the nature of that response will be India's decision alone. Technically, for a nuke attack on Pakistani soil, it would have triggered off a possible "First strike" by India, an advantage that Pakistan would be loath to hand over.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Thanks...agreed.



Nobody is depending too much on them. Neither Pakistan is spending too much on them (as hyped by international media), nor they are the only line of defense. They are there to plug-in the loop holes created by bigger and less rapidly mobilize-able nuclear weapons.

Of course, nuclear weapons nullify their purpose as soon as they are used (by both sides). But you have to agree, they have prevented what could've been the bloodiest of world and regional wars.

I am inclined to agree with all but the last part of your post; the underlined part. Nukes have not prevented war or conflicts; Nukes have or can only prevent Nuclear War. Their utility is limited to that.

 

[The Deterrent]

I am inclined to agree with all but the last part of your post; the underlined part. Nukes have not prevented war or conflicts; Nukes have or can only prevent Nuclear War. Their utility is limited to that.

I am talking about wars between somewhat equal rivals, like NATO vs. USSR. Or a 4th world war, fought by conventional weapons.
Of course smaller conflicts like Gulf wars will continue to happen, unless everyone acquires nukes.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I am talking about wars between somewhat equal rivals, like NATO vs. USSR. Or a 4th world war, fought by conventional weapons.
Of course smaller conflicts like Gulf wars will continue to happen, unless everyone acquires nukes.

NATO vs USSR/WARSAW Pact was not a war that could really take place. There were just no reasons that be 'cobbled up' to do so.
I see no reason to amend my belief yet.

 

[The Deterrent]

NATO vs USSR/WARSAW Pact was not a war that could really take place. There were just no reasons that be 'cobbled up' to do so.
I see no reason to amend my belief yet.

Fighting wars is in human nature, we just can't stop doing that.

Sure, you may believe what you deem fit.

 

[Bang Galore]

Even a midget nuke strike will lead to massive retaliation

NEW DELHI: India will retaliate massively even if Pakistan uses tactical nuclear weapons against it. With Pakistan developing "tactical" nuclear warheads, that is, miniaturizing its weapons to be carried on short-range missiles, India will protect its security interests by retaliating to a "smaller" tactical attack in exactly the same manner as it would respond to a "big" strategic attack.

Articulating Indian nuclear policy in this regard for the first time, Shyam Saran, convener of the National Security Advisory Board, said, "India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but if it is attacked with such weapons, it would engage in nuclear retaliation which will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage on its adversary. The label on a nuclear weapon used for attacking India, strategic or tactical, is irrelevant from the Indian perspective." This is significant, because Saran was placing on record India's official nuclear posture with the full concurrence of the highest levels of nuclear policymakers in New Delhi.

Giving a speech on India's nuclear deterrent recently, Saran placed India's nuclear posture in perspective in the context of recent developments, notably the "jihadist edge" that Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability have acquired.

Saran argued that as a result of its tactical weapons, Pakistan believes it has brought down the threshold of nuclear use. "Pakistani motivation is to dissuade India from contemplating conventional punitive retaliation to sub-conventional but highly destructive and disruptive cross-border terrorist strikes such as the horrific 26/11 attack on Mumbai. What Pakistan is signalling to India and to the world is that India should not contemplate retaliation even if there is another Mumbai because Pakistan has lowered the threshold of nuclear use to the theatre level. This is nothing short of nuclear blackmail, no different from the irresponsible behaviour one witnesses in North Korea," he said.

One of the main reasons for Pakistan miniaturizing its nukes is actually to keep its weapons from being confiscated or neutralized by the US, a fear that has grown in the Pakistani establishment in the wake of the operation against Osama bin Laden. "Pakistan has, nevertheless, projected its nuclear deterrent as solely targeted at India and its strategic doctrine mimics the binary nuclear equation between the US and the Soviet Union which prevailed during the Cold War," Saran said.

However, warning Pakistan, he added, "A limited nuclear war is a contradiction in terms. Any nuclear exchange, once initiated, would swiftly and inexorably escalate to the strategic level. Pakistan would be prudent not to assume otherwise as it sometimes appears to do, most recently by developing and perhaps deploying theatre nuclear weapons."

There have been significant shifts in Pakistan's nuclear posture recently. First is the movement from uranium to a newer generation of plutonium weapons, which has enabled Pakistan to increase the number of weapons, outstripping India in weapons and fissile material production. Although they are still to be verified, Pakistan has claimed it has miniaturized nuclear weapons to be used on cruise missiles and other short-range missiles. The newer generation of Pakistan's weapons are also solid-fuelled rather than liquid, making them easier to transport and launch.

Even a midget nuke strike will lead to massive retaliation, India warns Pak - The Times of India

 

[notorious_eagle]

My point actually. Indian planners have so far not pushed because as you say they are not willing to risk escalation. What would it then say when Indian forces have still decided to attack? That they are fully prepared to take that risk head on?

In that case, Pakistan will use every weapon in her arsenal to defend the Motherland. If India is insistent on fighting a war, Pakistan will gladly oblige as witnessed in the last 2 attempts by India.

Degradation will happen in the initial contacts itself, far before any armoured thrust comes rumbling in. If you believe that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in that situation, then it would have to be on Indian territory itself & very early in the conflict. That will invite a guaranteed response anyways. Indian armour isn't about to roll into Pakistan without establishing some sort of an aerial superiority. What you are suggesting seems more like nuke as a first weapon & then it certainly won't be Nasr. Indian planners have some understanding in what constitutes Pakistan's red lines. They are unlikely to seriously threaten that, preferring instead to remain within their limits. That is btw, the cold start doctrine. It is not to aim for an all out victory. Many, here & elsewhere have suggested that Nasr could be used in the very initial stages as a field weapon if Pakistan faces even limited reverses. That is what is in discussion here..

What you are talking about are punitive strikes. NATO conducted flew round the clock sorties over Iraq for 30 days during GW1, Iraqi C&C and most of her military assets were still intact. Neither is IAF equivalent to NATO, and neither is PAF equivalent to Iraqi Air Force. For India to cause serious damage, Armour will have to roll in and cause some serious damage.

The Indian Cold Start Doctrine relies on speed and initiative fused up with Armour and Air Assets to take the fight to the enemy and hit em hard and fast, inspired by US Doctrine of 'Shock and Awe'. If IAF conducts only aerial strikes, it gives Pakistan enough time to mobilize which renders the entire Indian Doctrine void. Pakistan will only use a tactical nuke if the Indians manage to defeat Pakistan's Armour and break through the N5 highway, effectively cutting of Karachi-Islamabad Axis. Looking at the conventional balance of power, i don't see that happening but there is always a possibility that there is a Guderian or Zhukov in the Indian General Staff.

Everyone bluffs, no one is talking about Pakistan Army willingness to defend but any ambiguous posture is there for a reason. Once that bluff has been called, it has to be decided whether to act on that or rethink the position.

If Pakistan makes a bluff, it is backed up by sheer brute force. If Pakistan threatens to turn the fertile lands of Punjab into a wasteland, Pakistan has enough firepower to act on that. Bluffs make a dent if they are backed up by force, unlike the NK bluffs that are made up off hot air without any substance to back them up.

(Parakram achieved limited objectives including a crackdown even if temporary, on terror groups, the failure to obtain overwhelming advantage was why cold start was theorised. There was no build up after Mumbai)

The crackdown in terror was due to a genuine desire in Pakistan to improve relations with India, Parakram cost you the lives of 800 soldiers but i like how you spin doctored it. Post Mumbai, India started troop movements in Rajashtan and supply trucks started arriving in your cantonments indicating logistical preparations on your side. IAF sent two SU30MKI's on 'Test Runs' to evaluate PAF's response time and try and suck up PAF's radar signals. We all know how Pakistan responded to these two provocations, don't want to go in detail.

The bluff here is in keeping the use of a nuke ambiguous, there is nothing to do once it has been called. An Pakistani determination to escalate matters when the conflict is still around the border is moot. It is not as simple as you suggest when you say PA does not bluff. A nuclear weapon use will invite retaliation and PA is not run by suicidal fools anymore than the IA is.

Pakistan will not immediately exercise a nuke as i have said before. It will only exercise a nuke if Pakistan's 'Nuclear Red Lines' are crossed. If the battle is at the border, Pakistan will gladly fight it because it has enough conventional firepower to match India's. Pakistan is boosting both its conventional and nuclear firepower to ensure that a proper balance is maintained.

The armour rolling is also delivering a message. No need to believe that your message will be better received than ours. An attack on Indian assets will invite retaliatory action, that is cold military logic. Unless you too believe that Indians lack testicular fortitude to use nukes after showing enough to send armour rolling in.

Not at all. Just like an attack on Indian assets will invite a retaliatory action, similarly an attack on any Pakistani asset or breach of the border will invite a massive retaliation from Pakistan.

Messages are many. You do understand that an Indian attack, keeping in mind India's reticence thus far would indicate an determination to deal with an issue.

Indeed, but than Pakistan will also be well within her rights to use every possible means to defend the Home Land.

My point. Any use will invite a response, the nature of that response will be India's decision alone. Technically, for a nuke attack on Pakistani soil, it would have triggered off a possible "First strike" by India, an advantage that Pakistan would be loath to hand over.

These 'No First Use' declarations only look good on paper. Are you telling me that India will not use her nuclear weapons if PLA is marching to Delhi?

 

[toxic_pus]

The purpose of the nuke from what i can understand is to fire a warning shot, which communicates that PA is dead serious and India is on the verge of crossing its Nuclear Red Line.

That message can be delivered without firing a single shot.

Why would Pakistan fire a tac nuke at an advancing Indian column and risk a total nuclear holocaust when they can just haul up a nuke all the way to Chaghai and explode it above ground?

The primary purpose is not to cause destruction, the purpose is to deliver a message.

If one has used a nuke, it implies the deterrence has failed. Its all or nothing.

 

[Bang Galore]

In that case, Pakistan will use every weapon in her arsenal to defend the Motherland. If India is insistent on fighting a war, Pakistan will gladly oblige as witnessed in the last 2 attempts by India.

So what. Are we not discussing a hypothetical here? What's with this politician's speech?

What you are talking about are punitive strikes. NATO conducted flew round the clock sorties over Iraq for 30 days during GW1, Iraqi C&C and most of her military assets were still intact. Neither is IAF equivalent to NATO, and neither is PAF equivalent to Iraqi Air Force. For India to cause serious damage, Armour will have to roll in and cause some serious damage.

I was referring specifically to your detection abilities being degraded.

The Indian Cold Start Doctrine relies on speed and initiative fused up with Armour and Air Assets to take the fight to the enemy and hit em hard and fast, inspired by US Doctrine of 'Shock and Awe'. If IAF conducts only aerial strikes, it gives Pakistan enough time to mobilize which renders the entire Indian Doctrine void. Pakistan will only use a tactical nuke if the Indians manage to defeat Pakistan's Armour and break through the N5 highway, effectively cutting of Karachi-Islamabad Axis. Looking at the conventional balance of power, i don't see that happening but there is always a possibility that there is a Guderian or Zhukov in the Indian General Staff.

The idea is that there won't be a very long gap between achieving reasonable air superiority ( does not have to be a complete wipe out of the PAF) Just enough to establish dominance. It would be reasonable to expect that Pakistan will fare worse off . If you believe otherwise, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical in question. Pakistan is hardly likely to commit suicide if it is winning or even, no?

If Pakistan makes a bluff, it is backed up by sheer brute force. If Pakistan threatens to turn the fertile lands of Punjab into a wasteland, Pakistan has enough firepower to act on that. Bluffs make a dent if they are backed up by force, unlike the NK bluffs that are made up off hot air without any substance to back them up.

Firepower is not in question, intent & timing is. After all, firepower exists with India too.

The crackdown in terror was due to a genuine desire in Pakistan to improve relations with India, Parakram cost you the lives of 800 soldiers but i like how you spin doctored it. Post Mumbai, India started troop movements in Rajashtan and supply trucks started arriving in your cantonments indicating logistical preparations on your side. IAF sent two SU30MKI's on 'Test Runs' to evaluate PAF's response time and try and suck up PAF's radar signals. We all know how Pakistan responded to these two provocations, don't want to go in detail.

Regardless of how many soldiers were lost during Op. Parakram, it did serve a limited purpose of forcing Pakistan's hand on the terrorism issue, even if that was partly under American pressure & was not intended as a long term measure. It would be laughable to think that post an almost-near conflict, the Pakistani establishment was eager for good relations and that was the reason for the crackdown. That would happen nearly a year & a half later.

Pakistan will not immediately exercise a nuke as i have said before. It will only exercise a nuke if Pakistan's 'Nuclear Red Lines' are crossed. If the battle is at the border, Pakistan will gladly fight it because it has enough conventional firepower to match India's. Pakistan is boosting both its conventional and nuclear firepower to ensure that a proper balance is maintained.

Cold start does not envisage very deep thrusts, rather a series of shallow thrusts not too far from the border. If Pakistan has conventional power to match India, we are again engaging in a futile discussion since the very basis for the argument is the breaching of Pakistani defences by the IA.

Not at all. Just like an attack on Indian assets will invite a retaliatory action, similarly an attack on any Pakistani asset or breach of the border will invite a massive retaliation from Pakistan.

We are talking nuclear weapons, not conventional ones. You claim there are red lines while arguing like the red line is drawn 50m from the border. Confusing argument.

Indeed, but than Pakistan will also be well within her rights to use every possible means to defend the Home Land.

No one is discussing rights here, let's not waste our time on that.

These 'No First Use' declarations only look good on paper. Are you telling me that India will not use her nuclear weapons if PLA is marching to Delhi?

My point. Pakistan will always have to fear an Indian first strike, giving it a reason would be silly.

 

[ghauri05]

what do you think only Pakistan have capability to nuke India.. As compared to Pakistan India have some degree of ballistic missile defense.. I think you are living in fools paradise and showing your so called nuclear capacity.. Guerilla warfare and nuclear war are far sides of earth.. Nuclear war is self destruction if you are offending any nuclear country and don't give such Kiddish logic..
India knows Pakistan better than you hence we are preparing for ballistic missile defense.
And at last .. You are convinced that Pakistan lags behind India in conventional war.. Its hard to find such members on PDF.

Your post indicates that you did not get the logic.
1. Guerilla war was just an example that when country has less resources than the enemy. It is just a strategy. It has nothing to do with nuclear.Pakistan has its strategy of "Nuclear Deterrent".
2. You said that India knows Pakistan better than me and is preparing the defence shield. So you are admitting that Pakistan has the capability to Nuke India and India knows it better(which is contradictory to your first statement about Pakistan's Nuke capability.)
3. And no Pakistani ever said that India had no nuclear power(unlike most Indians including you believe that Pakistan does not have it). And we built our nuclear arsenal to balance the power in the region.
4. I admitted on my post that Pakistan lags behind India in conventional war with respect to "NUMBER" and I also said it we dont have to match in number(plz read it again).It simply does not suit to our requirements.
Next time plz think logically dont be "LAKEER KA FAKIR"

 

[notorious_eagle]

@Bang Galore

Clearly this discussion is not going anywhere, so please allow me to take my exit. I will conclude by stating that i will rely on the judgement of PA's strategic war-planners. If they think that Tactical Nukes serve utility on the battlefield, than so be it.

 

[deckingraj]

Sir

First of all, there is no White Paper released by the Indian Government outlining its stance regarding a tactical nuke strike. This article represents the opinion of an Ex Foreign Secretary, so far the Indian Government has officially been ambiguous regarding this scenario.

Agreed!....IMHO there should not be any ambiguity over country's nuclear doctrine. However these tactical weapons have come at a later state and i hope New Delhi simply shed her lethargic attitude and make it ample clear as to what is her position on use of Tactical weapons on her forces.

Lets brainstorm and try to find out under what scenarios NASR will be used. I reckon it will be used as a warning shot if the IA manages to destroy a huge chunk of PA's Armour, breaks through the N5 highway effectively cutting off Karachi-Islamabad Axis, and is advancing towards Islamabad. PA fires a tactical nuke while giving out the orders to start assembling a strategic nuke. Once PA fires that nuke, it would be up to India whether she chooses to exercise the option of MAD or chooses to withdraw her forces from Pakistan. Thus, Pakistan leaves the ball in India's court on which course of action she want

Fair enough. However i have one problem with your scenario....It would be absolute stupidity on New Delhi's part to move their forces that deep into Pakistan...not only they manage to cut off Karachi-Islamabad(as per hypothetical scenario) Axis but are also advancing towards Islamabad...whoa!! that would be a foolish attempt...In fact New Delhi would be better off nuking Pakistan on the very onset of the conflict if that is there intention...Nukes on both sides have already given an unwritten insurance that this will never happen....

IMHO the only scenario we have left is more of a Kargil like conflict(wish even that never happens)...A small theater of war which spans to few KM in depth and that's it...Now if your thought process is saying that this doesn't amount to use of tactical weapons then we both are at peace...

This is a never ending argument, both sides have enough munitions to cause colossal damage to each other. When both sides are done causing damage to each other, there are not going to be any winners in the end. Not at all, the use of NASR ensures that there might be hope that India might not choose to exercise MAD. I have a hard time believing that India will risk frying up its entire country for the sake of an Armoured Column, i just cannot get my head around this.

Once again a fair argument...however think from this perspective....these are deterrents...the way we have a deterrent for not attacking Pakistan with full thrust just bcoz we risk getting fried the same way Pak has its deterrent for not using any nuke on us or risk getting fried...these actions are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of imagination...Now let's say Pak used tactical weapons on our advancing troops....we respond back with a tactical weapon of ours(a minimum reply which we would be duty bound to give....i mean we didn't send the troops there to be nuked anyway's and then retreat..keep in mind we have already crossed the first deterrent by advancing our troops that deep)...now what?? you use another tactical weapon?? You use the strategic one's?? All these calculations would have already been accounted(should have) by both sides....and i cannot contemplate anything else but MAD here....so now once again..if use of tactical weapons is for sure going to ead us to MAD then why not go for it in the first place...

I hope you can see my dilemma here....Anyhow what will actually happen i am not sure but common sense say's that more often then not it is the pride of a country which pushes it over the edge...Take this recent China-India tangle...if we look at it from one angle then it is a matter of just 5 tents...however put the pride in place then it is a big issue...Any side showing even a little bit of arrogance and the theater has the potential to go huge, no??

But please look at @AhaseebA response, i couldn't have said it better myself.

will reply to him as well...thanks!!

 

[deckingraj]

Thanks...agreed.

Nobody is depending too much on them. Neither Pakistan is spending too much on them (as hyped by international media), nor they are the only line of defense. They are there to plug-in the loop holes created by bigger and less rapidly mobilize-able nuclear weapons.

Of course, nuclear weapons nullify their purpose as soon as they are used (by both sides). But you have to agree, they have prevented what could've been the bloodiest of world and regional wars.

Yes Ahaseeba, i will agree with you here...however there is a saying in my field(software engg.)...cost is directly proportional to the number of features/flexibility added in the software.....The flexibility has been brought in however at what cost?? Now the nukes are in direct control of command level folks...Imagine the risk that we have added into pushing a conventional war into a MAD scenario.... IMHO the better and best scenario would a highly reliable second strike capability...