Pakistan Army to preempt India’s ‘Cold Start Doctrine’

[Secur]

India does not differentiate between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and longer range type of missiles, if a nuke is used it will result in full scale nuclear onslaught of all major cities in Pakistan and strategic centres.

Maybe you do not think so , but they do in reality . But a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic one are well distinguished . Think of it , you move a few IBG's to invade Pakistan and capture small areas as per the doctrine and Pakistan responses with a nuke on the battlefield on the invading troops due to its geographic vulnerability . Leave the efficiency of such a strike , viability and long term effects of nuclear fallout for a while . Just think it explodes on the troops . What do you think would be a rational response from your country ? To drop nuclear weapon on Pakistani cities , start a full nuclear war and in the meantime ensure its ' destruction ' too or to retreat after the strike making sure the billions of people in India aren't risked because of a few thousand soldiers ?

 

[Yeti]

The question is, what purpose will it serve. If it can solve the terrorism issue then may be it can be tried.
Even if pakistan did not have nuclear weapon and we could defeat them, I dont understand how it will stop terrorism.

Terrorism can only be won fighting it head on just ask Mossad what they did with Operation Wrath of God, being weak and twiddling your thumbs gets you nowhere.

 

[Secur]

India would begin aerial attacks against Pakistan

Who were the people in those ' group of Pakistanis ' ?

Second , IAF tried to test the Pakistan's response by sending aircraft to intrude in various sectors and well they found it to be ' quite fast ' , the aircraft returned , I will not go into ' locking and other part ' here , so what happened ? As for the mood part , I do not need to remind you that unlike in '87 and '02 , you didn't even mobilize the troops . Nuclear weapons complicate things more than you are thinking at the moment with these emotional posts .

 

[Yeti]

Maybe you do not think , they do . But a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic one are well distinguished . Think of it , you move a few IBG's to invade Pakistan and capture small areas as per the doctrine and Pakistan responses with a nuke on the battlefield on the invading troops due to its geographic vulnerability . Leave the efficiency , viability and long term effects of nuclear fallout for a while . Just think it explodes on the troops . What do you think would be a rational response from your country ? To drop nuclear weapon on Pakistani cities , start a full nuclear war and in the meantime ensure its ' destruction ' too or to retreat after the strike making sure the billions of people in India aren't risked because of a few thousand soldiers ?

Our official policy is we do not differentiate between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and longer type misiles so any use of a nuclear weapon be it a small or a big will result in full use of our strategic weapons.

A nuclear weapon is a nuke does not matter the level it is and this is our position, we are working towards BMD implementation also to safeguard our cities and key strategic points but this will take some time to come into play.

 

[livingdead]

Terrorism can only be won fighting it head on just ask Mossad what they did with Operation Wrath of God, being weak and twiddling your thumbs gets you nowhere.

I am not against covert operation. RAW indeed should be involved. Israel will never fight against a country that has sizable military like iran, unless they themselves expect an imminent attack.

your solution to like killing mosquitos with hammer.

 

[Yeti]

Who were the people in those ' group of Pakistanis ' ?

Second , IAF tried to test the Pakistan's response by sending aircraft to intrude in various sectors and well they found it to be ' quite fast ' , the aircraft returned , I will not go into ' locking and other part ' here , so what happened ? As for the mood part , I do not need to remind you that unlike in '87 and '02 , you didn't even mobilize the troops . Nuclear weapons complicate things more than you are thinking at the moment with these emotional posts .

The key locations of the terror infrastructure will be the targets such as the camps

 

[Secur]

Our official policy is we do not differentiate between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and longer type misiles so any use of a nuclear weapon be it a small or a big will result in full use of our strategic weapons.

A nuclear weapon is a nuke does not matter the level it is and this is our position, we are working towards BMD implementation also to safeguard our cities and key strategic points but this will take some time to come into play.

I am not talking about your official policy or the nuclear doctrine , I know they do but everything the Govt tells its citizens isn't a reality to be believed . What do you think common sense dictates here ? Retreat , save a billion or continue , risk a billion ?

I know your position , doesn't matches with the ' supposed rationality ' of the nuclear states and I know every country that possesses it is rational , knowing the risks of MAD .

 

[Yeti]

that was coercion, but I seriously doubt we will do it. Our leadership is not stupid, or manned by faujis..

One good thing about being a democracy is the added public pressure will play a key role in deciding what course of action to take if God forbid another massive terror attack happens, no Govt in India can do just nothing this time around as we would be a laughing stock of the entire world.

 

[Secur]

The key locations of the terror infrastructure will be the targets such as the camps

If it was that easy , what prevented the Indians from doing it ? Nuclear deterrence or the risk of a war which in all certainty would have had a very negative impact on the economy , right ?

 

[arushbhai]

India would never go on a war with Pakistan. India is an emerging economic power, it makes most of its money from services it provides to the world. Yahoo, Dell, Microsoft etc have their head offices there. If india goes on a war with pakistan, all the foreign investors will run away. India imports its weapons from russia, israel etc. Its not like a war would benefit its defence industry as they dont have large scale defence industries. War = import more weapons = less money = print more money to support war = inflation = take loans = print more money = get in debt = print more money = take loan = get in debt = print more money.....

 

[Yeti]

I am not talking about your official policy or the nuclear doctrine , I know they do but is everything the Govt tells its citizens a reality to be believed . What do you think common sense dictates here ? Retreat , save a billion or continue , risk a billion ?

I know your position , doesn't matches with the ' supposed rationality ' of the nuclear states and I know every country that possesses it is rational knowing the risks of MAD .

You made a very good point rationality as a poker player it is a game of bluffs will Pakistan take that chance and risk it? does it know India is bluffing? so this works both ways.

 

[livingdead]

One good thing about being a democracy is the added public pressure will play a key role in deciding what course of action to take if God forbid another massive terror attack happens, no Govt in India can do just nothing this time around as we would be a laughing stock of the entire world.

so you are thinking of country's izzat and not a solution to the problem.
Terror problem cant be solved by attacking a country. Now we dont even know whether it has been state sponsored.

Using intelligence agencies is much better solution.
Also, are you sure we are not involved in supporting any terror act outside India?

Here is my question. would you rather have somalia/afganistan on your border?

 

[Secur]

You made a very good point rationality as a poker player it is a game of bluffs will Pakistan take that chance and risk it? does it know India is bluffing? so this works both ways.

I am glad .

Yes , maybe you do not know about the geographic vulnerability with its shallow depth and important military installations , bases and cities being close to the Indian border which means that Pakistan has the danger of its ' nuclear thresholds ' being crossed much earlier and to be ' more willing ' to deter further action . Because it has more to lose here , it has a higher chance or probability of acting against it . Is the same true for India who's losing a few IBG's maybe but risking the bulk of its population ?

Works both ways , the bluff , just that a side is more eager to call ' All in ' .

 

[Yeti]

If it was that easy , what prevented the Indians from doing it ? Nuclear deterrence or the risk of a war which in all certainty would have had a very negative impact on the economy , right ?

26/11 was a shock we were not in the least bit prepared to respond we lacked anti-tank missiles and a whole heap of other vital equipment which is why soon after 26/11 orders were placed from France and Russia.

 

[Yeti]

I am glad .

Yes , maybe you do not know about the geographic vulnerability with its shallow depth and important military installations , bases and cities being close to the Indian border which means that Pakistan has the danger of its ' nuclear thresholds ' being crossed much earlier and to be ' more willing ' to deter further action . Because it has more to lose here , it has a higher chance or probability of acting against it . Is the same true for India who's losing a few IBG's maybe but risking the bulk of its population ?

Works both ways , the bluff , just that a side is more eager to call ' All in ' .

But India will go after terror camps not the Pakistani military unless it has to and the whole world will be watching and putting pressure not to esculate the conflict.

Ill be online tomorrow to take this up more