Pakistan Sets Up Tactical Nuclear Missiles Base?

[Immanuel]

that was a discouraging post although an ugly truth, that is why I support arming of conventional weapons.

IMO Pak should abandon its tac nukes and stick to strategic weapons and make its delivery mechnisms robust while focusing mostly on improving it coventional strength. This will prevent unneeded escalation and still give both nations a possibility to have a respectable conventional war when needed. Just because we have nukes doesn't mean we can't have a skirmish once in a while.

Flawed logic. On the contrary, Pakistan's conventional forces are far more powerful and numerical then they were between 1970-2010. Everyone seriously seriously underestimates Pakistan's conventional forces. If Pakistan's nuclear weapons & doctrine were ineffective then india would have attacked Pakistan many times in the last 3 decades especially after severe provocations but have instead chosen diplomatic means to malign Pakistan. So it's very hard to believe your post.

India has never started the escalations, go back to your history books. Sure, the conventional stregth of Pak has been better than ever before but India too has more than quadrupled its strength since the 2000's. By 2020, we'd have again quadrupled the capability that we have today. We are adding 10s of new battalions in the paramilitary, 2 more strike corps and plenty of other things.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

IMO Pak should abandon its tac nukes and stick to strategic weapons and make its delivery mechnisms robust while focusing mostly on improving it coventional strength. This will prevent unneeded escalation and still give both nations a possibility to have a respectable conventional war when needed. Just because we have nukes doesn't mean we can't have a skirmish once in a while.



India has never started the escalations, go back to your history books. Sure, the conventional stregth of Pak has been better than ever before but India too has more than quadrupled its strength since the 2000's. By 2020, we'd have again quadrupled the capability that we have today. We are adding 10s of new battalions in the paramilitary, 2 more strike corps and plenty of other things.

Steady on. If you keep quadrupling your strength every 5 or so years you'll be more powerful than even america by 2035.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

keep living in your ignorance my dear. As for who is poorly informed is clear shown in the way your nation conducts itself. Pak is one of the laughing stocks of the world. Funny thing is we don't have to do much for Pak to be reduced to rubble and with its new dotrince Pak can choose its time of demise. I would say 'snap out of your Pakistan'



By 2035, we'll be the world's largest population, one of 3 largest economies and possibly one of the 3 most powerful nations of the world militarily.

Well if that's true then at least you guys never have to worry about the "anglo-saxon british raj" ever again.

 

[Hellfire]

We have developed Tac nukes for using em if push comes to shove ..

What is the yield you are talking about here?

The SOP for NASR is to strike at the border not inside Pakistan territory, i think idont need to tell you which moves faster NASR or an armoured colum, we will be playing HOLI with soldiers of mother india before they cross even 2 KM

You mean to say that you will be striking concentrating forces .... which are still concentrating and not yet launching an assault? That means, that if in hypothetical situation that India puts 6 corps of its at the western border 30 kms from International Boundary, you will attack the forces? If that be the case, kindly explain why you didn't when from June to January 5 corps were assembled along India's western border from 30 - 110 kms from the border? And this 80 km spread is the spread of the corps! Why didn't we see any nukes coming?

 

[Tipu7]

NASR is not first weapon of choice but of last resort.
Like a trump card which can be used any time in battle or a measure to "avoid" India from opening surprise front during a battle out numbering Pakistan Military.
Unlike popular belief, NASR is not a Cold Doctrine specific system, it can used for multiple tasks and in different front in a way that enemy never see it coming.
NASR can be used on Pakistan land as well Indian land depending upon gravity of situation.
But it will not be used on Civilian population and it's target will be Indian armored columns.
So any advance planning or assuming hypothetical situation is just use less.

What is the yield you are talking about here?



You mean to say that you will be striking concentrating forces .... which are still concentrating and not yet launching an assault? That means, that if in hypothetical situation that India puts 6 corps of its at the western border 30 kms from International Boundary, you will attack the forces? If that be the case, kindly explain why you didn't when from June to January 5 corps were assembled along India's western border from 30 - 110 kms from the border? And this 80 km spread is the spread of the corps! Why didn't we see any nukes coming?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The fact that Pak wants to use Tac nukes on the battefield for a conventional indian agression basically proves your military establishment is scared shitless of India's conventional forces. For people in Pak to believe if provoked India will just sit quiet is also an illusion, already for nearly a decade we are ready for a war under a dire nuke threat.

The last time it happened in Kargil, your shameless Ganja PM had to be shown his place.

The question of fear, cowardice or intrepidness and bravery doesn't come into this whatsoever. Having tactical nuclear weapons in the most practical, cost effective, efficient and sensible option from the POV of the Pakistan military. And to add to that it COULD potentially ensure strategic balance for Pakistan.

Normal military conventional wisdom dictates that to ensure a victory over Pakistan sans nukes, india would need to attack/invade Pakistan with a bare minimum conventional ratio of 3:1. In order to achieve that ratio before an attack, india would have to deploy a large part of it's forces near the border with Pakistan. When the first attack/incursion against Pakistan occurs then the Pakistan military would launch a tactical nuclear response on all those indian formations. This would decimate a large proportion of those formations and render a large part of the indian conventional forces null and void. This would also drastically reduce india's conventional weapons capability vis-à-vis Pakistan and bring some sort of manageable parity with us. What would cost Pakistan less than $1 billion to do would render 100s of billions of dollars worth of indian conventional weapons useless. This tactical nuclear response would be done in conjunction with Pakistani special forces operations against key indian installations. This would also give Pakistan a chance to initially damage or take out S-400 batteries and other key equipment.

Once the tactical nukes are dispensed, Pakistan would be expecting a full scale nuclear response by india. So the 1st, 2nd and 3rd strike capabilities are taken out of the equation. This would play into Pakistan's hands because when the indian nukes are in the initiation phase, Pakistan can opt to "launch on warning" with every single nuclear weapon we have. This would ensure in the very least that the 1st and 2nd strike capabilities are neutralized. This would all come at a horrific price for both Pakistan and india.

So however many 100s of billions or trillions of dollars india spends on conventional weapons, nukes and missiles are the great equalizer and nullifies all those conventional weapons. indian and Pakistani military high command are very well versed of the above scenario. That's why there has been relative peace the last few decades.

I hope the above NEVER EVER happens. Pakistan does have an existential threat. But it's not india. Nor is it inernal. It will take at least 50 years to overcome this threat.

 

[باپ]

I read comments by "Defence experts" here, about Pakistani tactical nukes and laugh.
You fail to understand the root cause of why Pakistan is making tactical nukes in the first place

 

[Hellfire]

NASR is not first weapon of choice but of last resort.
Like a trump card which can be used any time in battle or a measure to "avoid" India from opening surprise front during a battle out numbering Pakistan Military.
Unlike popular belief, NASR is not a Cold Doctrine specific system, it can used for multiple tasks and in different front in a way that enemy never see it coming.
NASR can be used on Pakistan land as well Indian land depending upon gravity of situation.
But it will not be used on Civilian population and it's target will be Indian armored columns.
So any advance planning or assuming hypothetical situation is just use less.

@Tipu7 Was asking the quoted member only. Please !!!! Specifically quoted people were talking non-sense so asked them to specify. The gentleman quoted was using them 2 km inside Indian territory on supposedly massing columns, clearly not knowing how an armored attack progresses and absolutely out of depth on this topic .... and now since you have deemed fit to intervene, what is the yield you are looking at on say NASR?

I read comments by "Defence experts" here, about Pakistani tactical nukes and laugh.
You fail to understand the root cause of why Pakistan is making tactical nukes in the first place

Pray, kindly do elucidate!

 

[Tipu7]

what is the yield you are looking at on say NASR?

Depends upon nature of war head we will use.
As far as I know, each missile of NASR is meant to cover an area of 3 km square. So it's 12 km square per launcher as per now. You can make random guess about its Yield.
But again, this is not authentic data, as real planning and capabilities are always kept out of approach of public forums.

The gentleman quoted was using them 2 km inside Indian territory on supposedly massing columns

Highly unlikely ........

 

[باپ]

@Tipu7 Was asking the quoted member only. Please !!!! Specifically quoted people were talking non-sense so asked them to specify. The gentleman quoted was using them 2 km inside Indian territory on supposedly massing columns, clearly not knowing how an armored attack progresses and absolutely out of depth on this topic .... and now since you have deemed fit to intervene, what is the yield you are looking at on say NASR?



Pray, kindly do elucidate!

"Elucidate " ? Please don't use such difficult words as I haven't got a degree in English literature.
On topic, what people fail to understand is the purpose of Nasr missile isn't total annihilation but disabling. A big yeild isn't required here. The weapon is a different class of nuclear weapons, it's a neutron bomb. In such weapon blast wave isn't required and isn't created, instead vast amounts of high energy neutrons are emitted. Because the bomb design has to be exposed enough and without thich shell or outer neutron absorbing layer, so as to let high energy neutrons escape.
Nasr is air burst weapon, so One of it will shower high energy neutrons on a few hundred square meters, may be 2 square kilometers and make soldiers sick by radiation dose, not necessarily kill them on the spot. Likewise it won't abnihilte tanks, just damage electronics and other radiation prone components enough to either disable them or damage them enough so that armoured division can't operate at full capacity,but much lower.
A small fission reaction acts as trigger and that causes fusion in an outer layer of Hydrogen or Lithium isotopes, which produces high energy neutrons shooting out of the warhead in all directions.
You cannot do this with larger warheads and such neutron emitting warhead has to be small.
First let's discuss this aspect then I will draw people's attention towards another reason why Nasr is so small.

 

[Malik Usman]

I didn't understand from which angle it looks like a Base of Tactical Weapons.......is this some kind of propaganda.....It surely can be as news came from Indian Media......

 

[Hellfire]

1.Depends upon nature of war head we will use.
As far as I know, each missile of NASR is meant to cover an area of 3 km square. So it's 12 km square per launcher as per now. You can make random guess about its Yield.
But again, this is not authentic data, as real planning and capabilities are always kept out of approach of public forums.


2. Highly unlikely ........

For:

1. The tactical munitions ideally will be in sub-kiloton yield. I always take the reference bomb to talk. So 20 kt at optimal height of approx 394-494 m AGL to have negligible fallout will cover about 7 km diameter in all kinds of effects.

Now that shall be about 25-30 tanks on a linear frontage or line abreast. All Russian origin tanks have an over pressure system. So actual effects will be nil to negligible. Your targets for tactical deployment will never be the armor, indeed it shall be the soft tail of the attacking columns, the infantry and support troops, that is the only segment you can affect.

Extrapolate it for smaller yield and you will have your answer. Reference yield for NASR as per open sources is below 5kt.

Also while many people keep tom toming the tactical nuclear weapons, once considered for use it becomes strategic. So it's something that is not an issue taken lightly. Pakistan has history of acting unbalanced but that has a very rationale thought - acting irrationally.

2. His contention. Not only unlikely, only a naive person would quote that figure.

I didn't understand from which angle it looks like a Base of Tactical Weapons.......is this some kind of propaganda.....It surely can be as news came from Indian Media......

An attempt to get publicity and for us to eat bandwidth lol

"Elucidate " ? Please don't use such difficult words as I haven't got a degree in English literature.
On topic, what people fail to understand is the purpose of Nasr missile isn't total annihilation but disabling. A big yeild isn't required here. The weapon is a different class of nuclear weapons, it's a neutron bomb. In such weapon blast wave isn't required and isn't created, instead vast amounts of high energy neutrons are emitted. Because the bomb design has to be exposed enough and without thich shell or outer neutron absorbing layer, so as to let high energy neutrons escape.
Nasr is air burst weapon, so One of it will shower high energy neutrons on a few hundred square meters, may be 2 square kilometers and make soldiers sick by radiation dose, not necessarily kill them on the spot. Likewise it won't abnihilte tanks, just damage electronics and other radiation prone components enough to either disable them or damage them enough so that armoured division can't operate at full capacity,but much lower.
A small fission reaction acts as trigger and that causes fusion in an outer layer of Hydrogen or Lithium isotopes, which produces high energy neutrons shooting out of the warhead in all directions.
You cannot do this with larger warheads and such neutron emitting warhead has to be small.
First let's discuss this aspect then I will draw people's attention towards another reason why Nasr is so small.

Firstly, thanks for your input.

Secondly, I was specific and quoting specific people and questioning their posts Only.

Thirdly, your neutron bomb makes no sense. You will have high NIGA activity in the residual 'fall out' rendering the ground unusable by you in case you have to hold it in your reorganization or concentration efforts.

Be very clear that the aim of a tactical level strike will be to exploit the effects thereof. There is nothing dissuasive about a tactical nuclear strike as you not only open your self to retaliatory strike, but also give away the initiative to the opposing forces, something only a fool would want.

What you have posted is very rudimentary scientific basis bereft of military angles so far.

Thanks

 

[Tipu7]

All Russian origin tanks have an over pressure system.

''Standard NBC'' protection will not work .................

Your targets for tactical deployment will never be the armor, indeed it shall be the soft tail of the attacking columns, the infantry and support troops, that is the only segment you can affect.

Nope. Every thing, Tanks, Artillery, Infantry columns,Support vehicles. Its meant to kill organic life, not to just ''affect'' any thing.

Extrapolate it for smaller yield and you will have your answer. Reference yield for NASR as per open sources is below 5kt.

Official claims of Yield and Range are wrong for obvious reasons.

The tactical munitions ideally will be in sub-kiloton yield. I always take the reference bomb to talk. So 20 kt at optimal height of approx 394-494 m AGL to have negligible fallout will cover about 7 km diameter in all kinds of effects.

There is no reference bomb for comparison.
As I said before, answer exist in war head type. You just can't compare it to vintage Nuclear artillery systems of Soviet Union or Rocket Artillery of NATO which was capable of delivering nuclear payloads.
What differentiate NASR from rest that it is not meant to create a massive blast with strong shock wave which literally make Tanks fly or high temperature which will make human bodies melt. Consider it a ''radiation bomb'' with ability to penetrate through thick armor and overcoming every type of NBC protection. Its made to Kill humans inside armor, not to kill armor ...................

 

[Hellfire]

''Standard NBC'' protection will not work .................

Do you even know what is an over pressure and how does it work? And what is standard NBC protection????

Nope. Every thing, Tanks, Artillery, Infantry columns,Support vehicles. Its meant to kill organic life, not to just ''affect'' any thing.

How exactly? Do you even have any idea of nuclear weapons and their effects?

Official claims of Yield and Range are wrong for obvious reasons

Ignore my above sentence ... it is now apparently clear you do not have any idea ...

There is no reference bomb for comparison.
As I said before, answer exist in war head type. You just can't compare it to vintage Nuclear artillery systems of Soviet Union or Rocket Artillery of NATO which was capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

What nonsense (underlined and highlighted portions)!!! If you have no idea then please do not post as if you know things .... A reference bomb is something that anyone who has ANY idea of nuclear weapons and nuclear yield will understand ...

For your education now

A reference bomb is invariably a 20 KT bomb whenever any yield of a nuclear device is being discussed or being gauged. It is called a reference bomb because it is the only yield which has been used in war till date and the data for it is available for casualty estimation and other parameters!!!!

What differentiate NASR from rest that it is not meant to create a massive blast with strong shock wave which literally make Tanks fly or high temperature which will make human bodies melt. Consider it a ''radiation bomb'' with ability to penetrate through thick armor and overcoming every type of NBC protection. Its made to Kill humans inside armor, not to kill armor ...................

What is this unique bomb you talk of????? How does a nuclear bomb cause biological effects? You mean to say you will channelize and create a unique Gamma Emitter only?

Please !!!!!

Sorry for having engaged with you and wasted your and my time



Thanks

 

[Tipu7]

Do you even know what is an over pressure and how does it work? And what is standard NBC protection????

I don't. Neither does the scientists working on NASR project. Plz educate us.

How exactly? Do you even have any idea of nuclear weapons and their effects?

No, I am just wasting your time + my time.

What is this unique bomb you talk of????? How does a nuclear bomb cause biological effects? You mean to say you will channelize and create a unique Gamma Emitter only?

I hinted about the specific term. Rest you are most welcome to postmortum the bodies of your soldiers. You will receive better results from ''samples'' laying in SDZ.

A reference bomb is invariably a 20 KT bomb whenever any yield of a nuclear device is being discussed or being gauged. It is called a reference bomb because it is the only yield which has been used in war till date and the data for it is available for casualty estimation and other parameters!!!!

THERE IS NO REFERENCE BOMB FOR COMPARISON.

What is this unique bomb you talk of?????

If you can make a suite case bomb, you can do a lot of interesting things. New concepts, new discoveries.
New weapons which are new for rivals.

Do you even know what is an over pressure and how does it work?

Nope. NBC is old thing, CBRN is savior of Humanity

Sorry for having engaged with you and wasted your and my time



Thanks

Recommending a bit study about ''salted bombs'' ...................
I will keep circulating around without giving you any exact answer. Its public forum after all

When I asked THEM to tell me about a ''specific'' thing related to NASR they responded with one sentence

''They (Indians) will see the flash but will not survive to hear it''

Rest make assumptions as much you like,
I am an illiterate person, who just love to spread rumors and jokes ...........

CHILL , just don't force us use that thing. Ball is in your court..............