Pakistan's "battlefield" nukes risk nuclear war: IISS think tank

[jaibi]

Hey @jaibi amigo; what you speak of reminds me of the saying about the Prussian Republic, i.e. the Army that has a Country not the Country that has an Army! That is also the story of Pakistan. Which is why time and again, the Army has led its Country in to sheer stupid misadventures. And who picked up the tab for all that? The hapless Awaam !!!Did they ever count for anything?

Now @Nassr is fervently and feverishly hoping that one country will come out better in this exchange of Armageddon!!!
I can only laugh at it all!!!!!!
Small is no advantage. If anything at all, its a terrible disadvantage. Simply because, one has little place to manuever; to the extent of even finding no place to hide!! Or no place to find any alternative area to shelter, cultivate or just exist!!!

Even hopefulness has its limits of absurdity after all.............



LOLLLL, and what language do you guys understand??
Amusing really, ain't it!

Sad but true Capt. I wish our people wake up from this frevish dream of a nuclear showdown for the betterment of both of our nations.

On a side note, Capt. I wrote this mini article I would love to have your thoughts on it: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...heory-taliban-do-they-need-foreign-money.html

 

[qamar1990]

May be Pakistan can set an example by giving Balochistan the right to their land and self determination.



Azad Kashmir is already in Indian side, you should consider giving azadi to the "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" also.



And Non-Resident-Pakistanis will watch their country suffering the same fate in retaliation.



And all along I was thinking phensedyl is smuggled only into Bangladesh.



Indian Parliament has already taken the decision long back, and we are constantly improving our 2nd strike capabilities from land, sea, & air. Hence, CALM DOWN!!

lmao, lets ask the Kashmiris who are azad, IOK or pakistani kashmir, is your government willing to take chance and give the Kashmiris an option of being with india or pakistan in a vote?

pakistan will nuke indians who enter our territory with our strategic nukes, so india won't have a right to use nuclear weapons, but if they do then pakistan will once and for all wipe india off the map of the world.

 

[jaibi]

Since long, the military threat assessment intrinsically include the internal as well as external threats. At times when it is assessed that one of the types related to internal threats needs a military response, and if it is considered necessary, appropriate training is imparted. Fighting an insurgency needs a dynamic form of response. The insurgent keeps on changing its tactics and at times they achieve the surprise and thus the soldiers suffer casualties. This does not mean that they are not trained. They learn and adjust and try and remain ahead of the insurgent through a variety of means.

Saying that the army's focus on the type of training is narrow or traditional, is an incorrect assumption. And the defence posture is also not shifting - it is merely adjusting to include new forms of threat and needed response.

You may not agree with me but I know what I am talking about - in most western and democratic countries of the world, it is the armed forces who write the defence policies or suggest related postures, forward these to their governments, who approve these and issue them under their signatures.

Nassr I have a habit of going by the data and making my opinions as the data emerges not the other way around I will refer you to two excellent academic articles for you to read and then think upon.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...stan-army-s-experience-counterinsurgency.html

Regarding your second point it is absolutely false: Truman and not McArthur dictated defence policy. In the west the military designs the strategy not the policy, you are empirically and logically incorrect in this assumption.

A further case for Pakistan: http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/SR 297.pdf

Please, come with empirical and logical proofs Nassr.

 

[Secur]

How many time did you think, before starting a Kargil war, a war fought under a nuclear overhang, it was a war which could have easily gone nuclear, in fact would have been ..as your were already preparing your nuclear delivery systems.

No one here says, the war has to be initiated by India..it could be Pakistani army's adventurism which start it..what would you do in that case..still launch TNWs?

A great many times from , a long time according to the disclosed reports though what made them go ahead with the plan at the wrong time is beyond me . You do not start a conflict without well defined aims and objectives and proper logistics . A limited scale conflict that be , not a full blown war , first of all . Second , Pakistan operated on the assumption that the Indians would never cross the International Border and well you never did . Third , the nuclear thresholds of New Dehli are high because of its conventional firepower , massive resources and the geography . That , in my opinion , is both an advantage a disadvantage . Fourth , since you have had more to lose , you will be more cautious than the other side . Preparing the nuclear systems for the worst case scenario , yes .

No one here also says that Pakistan will start to launch Tactical Nuclear Weapons as soon as the first Indian soldier crosses the border . Unfortunately , you are starting to look for morals in this business when there aren't any .

 

[Secur]

Indian Parliament has already taken the decision long back, and we are constantly improving our 2nd strike capabilities from land, sea, & air. Hence, CALM DOWN!!

Well , I think , you need to calm down , boy . Its already crossing the 150/110 mark

 

[Nassr]

Nassr I have a habit of going by the data and making my opinions as the data emerges not the other way around I will refer you to two excellent academic articles for you to read and then think upon.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...stan-army-s-experience-counterinsurgency.html

Regarding your second point it is absolutely false: Truman and not McArthur dictated defence policy. In the west the military designs the strategy not the policy, you are empirically and logically incorrect in this assumption.

A further case for Pakistan: http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/SR 297.pdf

Please, come with empirical and logical proofs Nassr.

I function on my own analysis after going through what others write and personal experience. You apparently do not have that kind of experience. Not everything that people write is correct, no matter how good many of these writers may be.

Lets agree to disagree, please.

 

[jaibi]

I function on my own analysis after going through what others write and personal experience. You apparently do not have that kind of experience. Not everything that people write is correct, no matter how good many of these writers may be.

Lets agree to disagree, please.

I would really admire it if you were to be a little more critical on the sources and build up your own analysis.

 

[Secur]

Hey Dude, the tech for them alraedy exists. Just that the Indian Nuclear Doctrine does not consider them to be of any appreciable value. Because TacNukes are just "the ultimate Hara-Kiri or Suicide Weapon". Which is precisely the point that the report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London says.

You did'nt get it yet?

So , why exactly does Pakistan consider them of appreciable value ? What causes low nuclear thresholds ? A deficit in conventional firepower and the geographical vulnerability . Nothing has changed on the ground as far I see , the same deterrence is still present on both sides , isn't it ? Just the nuclear thresholds have gone a bit low , to ensure that no one thinks of Cold Starts or 1 Kelvin Wars , that is what it is . Limited scale conflicts aren't an option in the presence of such weapons , the tactical nukes make sure that the enemy thinks twice before starting any misadventure . Do not cross the border and there will be no threat of any nuclear weapon of any kind . Do that , it all becomes unpredictable even without the TNW's , doesn't it ? . The dilemma of ' Retreat , save a billion or continue and risk them all , comes true though .

I , myself , got it just fine .

These thresholds highlight the fact that even limited wars which Indian defence intelligentsia believes in, are fraught with the threat of nuclear response even before the attacking forces attempt to cross the international border. The decision to initiate war therefore, even limited, must carefully factor in the nuclear response during the early stages of mobilization.

 

[Nassr]

Sad but true Capt. I wish our people wake up from this frevish dream of a nuclear showdown for the betterment of both of our nations.

On a side note, Capt. I wrote this mini article I would love to have your thoughts on it: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...heory-taliban-do-they-need-foreign-money.html

I think it is for the betterment of our nation that we have a growing nuclear deterrence. I am a realist and I do not believe in friendship between nations having their own interests. However, it is people like you who are against the use of nuclear weapons, keep people like us in check as well - but both of us necessary for our national growth and defence.

 

[Secur]

I think it is for the betterment of our nation that we have a growing nuclear deterrence. I am a realist and I do not believe in friendship between nations having their own interests. However, it is people like you who are against the use of nuclear weapons, keep people like us in check as well - but both of us necessary for our national growth and defence.

Mate , just because someone doesn't want or advocate a nuclear war doesn't mean that he is against the use of nuclear weapons in the worst case scenario or if unacceptable damage comes to his country .

 

[dray]

Well , I think , you need to calm down , boy . Its already crossing the 150/110 mark

How does it matter? We are only improving our 2nd strike capabilities, hence, everything remains cool if there is no 1st strike!! People advocating 1st strike need to calm down.

 

[Secur]

How does it matter? We are only improving our 2nd strike capabilities, hence, everything remains cool if there is no 1st strike!! People advocating 1st strike need to calm down.

Well it does matter . Its all hypothetical now , isn't it ? . Sure and we are improving our first strike capability , the second strike one can wait . What about people advocating Cold war ? Isn't the same true for them too ?

 

[Ganga]

In my humble opinion Pakistan would not dare use even tactical nuclear weapons against advancing Indian armored divisions. Its all in the mind. Their best hope is scare off Indians by brandishing the tactical nukes. But when push comes to shove, are they really going to use it. Its all very easy to say " we will nuke India to the stone age". Are you guys seriously not expecting any retaliation if you do so? By using nukes they are signing off their own death certificates. No sane person would do it. But in Pakistan's case I am not so sure. The paranoia that evil Hindus will invade Pakistan is so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani mindset that anything is possible. That's why India concentrate more on the ballistic missile shield programs and also the nuclear submarine project. These two systems cannot fail at any cost.

 

[Nassr]

I would really admire it if you were to be a little more critical on the sources and build up your own analysis.

Beyond a certain stage, I think people like me are allowed to formulate their own opinion and do not need a reference to negate or accept facts or perceived facts, because others have written somewhere about it. Where necessary, I do provide a link or a reference or even paste the paper or the article. I do not write here to convince people or change their opinion about anything - I only post here because I want to and I do not need to give out references about some of the aspects that I know are facts. So please, ignore me or write against what I state, I do not mind it at all.

 

[Secur]

In my humble opinion Pakistan would not dare use even tactical nuclear weapons against advancing Indian armored divisions. Its all in the mind.

Their best hope is scare off Indians by brandishing the tactical nukes. But when push comes to shove, are they really going to use it. Its all very easy to say " we will nuke India to the stone age".

Are you guys seriously not expecting any retaliation if you do so? By using nukes they are signing off their own death certificates. No sane person would do it.

Then , I believe that the Indians have nothing to fear from Pakistan's nuclear weapons since well its all in the mind and a figment of imagination .

The question is when does the push comes to shove and why does it ? When Islamabad feels that its very existence or the territorial integrity of the country is threatened and the country is close to the point of no return or in simple words ' the nuclear thresholds which being quite low are crossed/have the danger of being crossed/are in the process of being crossed ' . Then what happens ? Are we going to wait for that to happen ? Its ' use em or lose em ' then , boy . No sane person would believe that . Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrence but they are the same doomsday weapon too .

Yes , we are . Again , its ' Mutually Assured Destruction ' . But when one has nothing more to lose , you can be assured of any and all measures be taken to ensure that the opposition doesn't exist too . The supposed rationality of the nuclear states is only true to an extent . The real question is that ' Is India willing to risk the billion of lives just because a CBG has been nuked on the Pakistani soil ? ' .

But then again , you aren't even sure of your own opinion .