Pakistan Wants 'Battlefield' Nukes, against Indian Troops

[Agent Smith]

India will never ever even THINK of an offence into Pakistan let alone doing it practically.

I am sure,they must have more better way to commit suicide than wanting us to engage them

Don't live in delusion. acquiring nukes does not give you a license to carry out terror activities in India. we will safeguard our people at all cost. and in case you use nukes, we will also retaliate with nukes.

Pakistan has already deployed tnws. Yes making smarter sharper.. True.
When Indian don't have argument, says india would retaliate massively. For knowledge Pakistan do have SNWs to entertain bigger appetite of India and much sophisticated pinpoint accurate with multiple re entry vehicle mounted.

So TNWs of Pakistan is an overwhelmingly advanced edge. Propaganda can't counter it dear.

Not as sophisticated as ours Agni 5 has zero Circular Error Probability.

 

[alimobin memon]

WW2 centurion tanks survived. Now there are tanks with thrice the protection in armor, nbc and crew protection I don't see that effective until or unless warhead is at least 50+kn as these tanks will be in formation and 10 meters at least apart from each other. But what the hell we will ruin our land for nuking these armored divisions. cant we rely on our armor ? if in normal days we have thought of using it we might use it in war that is so wrong !

 

[gslv mk3]

So now try a begging pact with russia for TNW technology tansfer.

LMAO..a country that already have thermonuclear warheads doesn't need ToT for tactical nukes...

Thats the whole point u have very little in second strike capability

Dumbest think I've ever heard.Heard of K 15 SLBM,K 4 SLBM,canisterised and road mobile Shaurya ?

modi was only negotiating nuclear technology with Barak Hussein Obama?

Why is it then, whomsoever Indian PMs ever met, they talk of technology transfer of building / delivering nukes?

Do you even know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors ?

why is US reporting it as something bigger than Pakistan's conventional nuclear capabilities, which are anyway touted to be FAR superior in comparison to Indians.

Typical non sense

Shaheen IIAs range is over 3000 KM.

source

Feed your people and provide them shelter. We'll talk about missile shields and everything else after that.

LMAO We already know the effectiveness of your "super" shield defence system. Just a lot of hot air.

Do you even know that your country does much worse than India in social indicators like per capita income,HDI,global hunger Index etc ?

You cannot develop an effing 2 stroke engine on your own,and yet have the audacity to mock Indian BMD system.

So typical

Its still under development..

Already under deployment

 

[The Deterrent]

But this is not how Pakistanis have been envisioning its use, is it? Across this forum and even in your media, the idea proclaimed is that Nasr will be used as soon as Indian forces cross the border. Pakistan has no NFU, and India has conventional superiority, and therefore as soon as an Indian IBG crosses the border, Pakistan will use Nasr to vaporize it. That's what everybody here seem to be saying. In such a scenario, as I said, a Nasr is as good as a gravity bomb dropped from an old mirage-3.

Fortunately, the decision makers are not that dumb to waste resources like that. Pre-mature usage of tactical nukes for the show of force, however, is a different matter.

Now in your scenario, you are suggesting that Nasr will be used after India has deteriorated the PAF to a large extent, and also captured strategically significant landmass. How can Pak nuke Indian ground forces in such a situation, without almost quite literally shooting itself in the foot? I mean, by strategic landmass if you mean an important town or city, then surely you can imagine why it would be unwise to nuke that region. All the plains of Pakistan near the border are either populated, or important agriculturally and for irrigation. Pakistan cannot nuke those regions without suffering the consequence for ages.

The environmental impact of tactical nuclear weapons (rather nuclear weapons as a whole) is sometimes over-rated. There are two main types of effective detonations; a ground-burst and an air-burst. While the ground burst throws up radiated dirt and fallout all over the place, the air-burst minimizes fallout and maximizes blast-wave for maximum damage to structures/vehicles. Since the fireball barely touches the ground (at an ideal air-burst altitude), the fallout is minimum.
Regarding shooting themselves in the foot, if the Pakistani military feels that sacrificing a small town overtaken by the enemy forces will halt the enemy's advance, rest assured they will go ahead with it. It gets even better if the area is barely populated.

Also, in the state of affairs you mentioned, Indian ground forces would not be concentrated as a brigade any more. They would be dispersed, to be able to hold on to the territory. Nuking them might mean a bigger loss to Pakistan (in terms of casualties or poisoned land) than to India. The only time you could use a nuke to wipe out a brigade would be in the very early stages of war, when the brigade is moving in close knit formation, and has only just crossed the border.

That is right, but the objective here is not to destroy all of the enemy's forces in the tactical nuclear strike. There is always a command/logistics center established right after taken over the area to maintain hold over it and basically control it. That can be the bull's eye, and the remaining forces can be countered with conventional forces after the nuclear strike. Again, the fallout in this case is minimum and the causalities are collateral damage.

@janon & @The Deterrent : thanks for contributing something to this thread.

Ok, Now for the rest of the Pakistani posters, let me clear something.

You are planning to respond to Indian Army's IBG intrusion by Nasr ? And you are expecting to bring India to bargaining table due to world pressure ?? Am I right till here ??

Now let's check the theory. If and when an Indian IBG rolls into a strategic location beyond LOC/IB the PA will retaliate with TNW as conventionally they would not be able to defeat them. The TNW will halt the IBGs progress but will result in something completely counter productive - Complete Annihilation through Indian High Yield Warheads.

Now I know few kids will be jumping in their pajams to type "You Hindus feel we are fools to launch just 1 Nasr !! <Insert appropriate Islamic verse > We will launch all our missile and kill all hindus !!". But just by doing this you have just nullified the use and rationale of such a weapon.

The TNWs where created to be used and not have full blown retaliation in return. But Indian NFU clearly states that ,forget nuclear, even the use of Chemical and Biological can also be warranted as reason for full blown retaliation. This in itself leaves the TNWs rationale worthless. Note:- TNWs are not worthless but their rationale is. So if you wanna use nuclear weapons then use all of them or don't use them at all. Bcoz even if one group of TELs or SSBN survives, they will unload their full load on you. We may die an instant death, but the remaining nuclear assets make sure that the enemy dies a slower much more painful death.

That piece of paper stating the legendary "No First Use" has been deemed impractical by Indian analysts and former officials themselves. Talking about it is easy, as I said, it requires a whole new pair of balls (read insanity) to execute it.

One more thing to consider. Battlefield nuclear weapons require local commanders to have authority and capability to arm and launch nuclear weapons. Hence the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons may lead to loosening the highly centralized command and control mechanism. This raises the risk of unauthorized use during a crisis or inadvertent escalation during a conventional conflict by a local commander of a nuclear-armed unit who might feel it necessary to use the weapons in order to avoid defeat. A positive sign is that Pakistan has not deployed the weapons in forward positions yet and has not delegated the authority to local commanders.

This "local-commanders-having-absolute-authority" is so Cold-war era term.
Ever heard of Permissive Action Links and the 2/3-Man Rule at every authorization level?

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

I thought many a time a scenario, i have some question in my mind. Could some knowledgeable guy answer these please?

Indians start a preemptive strike against Pakistan, through 2 of its Strike corps. They are somewhere in 10-20 miles within Pakistani territory. If Pakistan thinks that it may not be able to with stand the pressure. It decides to use TNW at say 2 places, with main body of Indian strike.

Now as per Indians, they would use massive retaliatory nuclear strike against major Pakistani cities.

My questions are, that as per Indian nuclear doctrine, they can use nuclear weapon, if some strategic Indian defense is compromised like for example, Jammu area. If they consider it right to use a nuclear weapon, when their national interest is compromised. Why cant Pakistan use nuclear option to safeguard her national interest?

Secondly, Indians will be using nucleur weapon, when their main strike corps have already been neutralized, what will be rational then to target civilian population centers? Also consider that, the scenario is of Indians going in for war obviously without UN mandate. What will be their moral and diplomatic stand on using nuclear weapons on millions of civilians ?