Nuclear weapons only for strategic deterrence: Army chief

[IndoUS]

No country is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. And lets face it the politicians on both sides value their life more that anything so they would never opt for a nuclear strike. The sole reason US used it in WW2 is because it was the only country that had that power, but now things have changed people today know of the consequences.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well it is still to be seen whether the Nasr works at all. No country has miniaturised nuclear warheads to that extent. If it does work, and if pakistan uses it, yes India will not hesitate to use nukes, and plenty of them. Our policy is simple - no first use, but massive retaliation.

But would you really escalate to full-scale nuclear war, if Nasr is used to repel an Indian conventional attack?

If Nasr is used on Indian forces, then many Indian troops would be lost... however your civilian population and major cities would be completely untouched if you chose to withdraw.

But if you chose to escalate in response, then the only outcome would be full-scale nuclear war.

Would the Indian leadership really respond by starting a nuclear war? Realistically?

 

[janon]

But would you really escalate to full-scale nuclear war, if Nasr is used to repel an Indian conventional attack?

If Nasr is used on Indian forces, then a lot of Indian troops would be lost... however your civilian population and major cities would be completely fine if you chose to withdraw.

But if you choose to escalate in response, then the only outcome would be full-scale nuclear war. Is the loss of face bad enough to risk that?

Yes, thats what the article says. Not my opinion, but the stated policy of the country and the armed forces - that any nuclear, chemical or biological attack on our territory or personnel will invite massive retaliation of an unacceptable level to the enemy. Read the last sentence of the article, its very unambigous.

That's our response to pakistan's "low nuclear threshold" policy.

 

[tvsram1992]

Surface to air nuclear low yield (less/non radioactive like thorium bomb)weapons should be developed as defense weapons and tactical weapons .

 

[IndoUS]

But would you really escalate to full-scale nuclear war, if Nasr is used to repel an Indian conventional attack?

If Nasr is used on Indian forces, then many Indian troops would be lost... however your civilian population and major cities would be completely untouched if you chose to withdraw.

But if you chose to escalate in response, then the only outcome would be full-scale nuclear war.

Would the Indian politicians really respond like that? Realistically?

Sir everything is a "IF" we all know in reality that the IA would never attack PA, unless the PA does something really outrageous.Push comes to shove the government will have only one choice to use nuclear weapons, IF the PA uses its first. The people in India will be pretty pissed about it.

 

[tjpf]

But would you really escalate to full-scale nuclear war, if Nasr is used to repel an Indian conventional attack?

If Nasr is used on Indian forces, then a lot of Indian troops would be lost... however your civilian population and major cities would be completely fine if you chose to withdraw.

But if you choose to escalate in response, then the only outcome would be full-scale nuclear war. Is the loss of face bad enough to risk that?

as i said its the bluff.
No doubt if a cold start operation is underway that means Pakistan has done another Kargil or Mumbai style attack. I guess your opinion is we would back off due to nuclear boogey but we have reached our limit and we are ready for a nuclear war and this is no bravado.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I guess your opinion is we would back off due to nuclear boogey but we have reached our limit and we are ready for a nuclear war and this is no bravado.

Well, nuclear bluffs are on another level. Since the consequences of misjudging a bluff are so catastrophic.

India's choice I guess.

 

[janon]

Well, nuclear bluffs are on another level. Since the consequences of misjudging a bluff are so catastrophic.

India's choice I guess.

Actually the choice of nuclear war is entirely pakistan's. India will not use nuclear weapons unless one is used on us first. Pakistan will be the one to initiate nuclear war, not India. So the choice of nuclear war rests entirely with pakistan.

Even if it is China or the USA that attacks us, we will not use nuclear weapons unless one is used on us first. So the choice of taking warfare to the nuclear level is always with whoever is waging war with India.

 

[tjpf]

Well, nuclear bluffs are on another level. Since the consequences of misjudging a bluff are so catastrophic.

India's choice I guess.

so be it as i said it gonna be MAD.
and wrong its pakistan's choice as we have no first use policy

 

[Smarterthanyou]

That is the whole point of = "lowering the nuclear threshold".

You have no idea what lowering the nuclear threshold was intended to mean, do you? It's not about acceptable smaller detonation.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You have no idea what lowering the nuclear threshold was intended to mean, do you? It's not about acceptable smaller detonation.

You completely missed the point, Indian.

Try reading the next few posts, or even the post which I was responding to, which talked about MAD.

 

[Smarterthanyou]

You completely missed the point, Indian.

Try reading the next few posts, or even the post which I was responding to, which talked about MAD.

Disregarding your Indian fixation with me, I did read your posts from your Nasr claim to your last one. You have a very warped understanding of the meaning of nuclear threshold. Why do you always come into Indian threads with smirky comments and naive assumptions.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Why do you always come into Indian threads with smirky comments and naive assumptions.

Sorry to hurt your Indian sensibilities. Indians troll us, and we reply.

Nasr was designed to counter Cold Start. If that is not lowering the nuclear threshold, then what is?

 

[janon]

Sorry to hurt your Indian sensibilities. Indians troll us, and we reply.

Nasr was designed to counter Cold Start. If that is not lowering the nuclear threshold, then what is?

And the counter to nasr is our policy of massive retaliation.

Lets have some clarity here - cold start is not meant for full scale war and dismemberment of pakistan. It is to inflict a few punishing strikes in the event of another major pak sponsored terrorist attack or war initiated by pakistan (unlikely). The aim wouldn't be to capture any territory, at least not with the intention of permanently holding it. Pakistan would be stupid to use a small tactical nuclear weapon (if such a thing exists) in such a scenario, because to do so would in fact take it to full fledged nuclear war, and India's response would be disproportionate and massive.

Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons unless its very existence is threatened. This is of course, assuming a measure of sanity from them. If they choose to actually use a nuclear weapon as a response to limited Indian thrusts, well thats their choice. The response would be full scale nuclear retaliation.

So a small nuclear weapon to counter cold start doesn't really make sense.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons unless its very existence is threatened. This is of course, assuming a measure of sanity from them. If they choose to actually use a nuclear weapon as a response to limited Indian thrusts, well thats their choice. The response would be full scale nuclear retaliation.

Well they already inducted Nasr. So it's beyond just hypotheticals now.

So a small nuclear weapon to counter cold start doesn't really make sense.

It makes perfect sense as a deterrent.

Would India dare to implement Cold Start, if they knew that it would lead to Nasr, which would force a full-scale nuclear war?