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

[dray]

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 ?

Oh c'mon, now you won't allow me to happily troll the trolls, will you? In any case given the current state of relations between the two countries, a cold war seems to be the safest option as long as it remains cold. We had enough of actual wars (and really tired with the same monotonous repetitive outcomes ).

Now the area of concern is the perpetual habit of starting a war (most of the times) by particularly one of us!! With nuclear weapons coming into the equation, that particularly country need to be more responsible and clearly understand both the short-term and long-term implications of mis-adventurism with such deadly weapons.

See how gently I can put my views across without offending anybody!!

 

[Nassr]

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 inheir operations would 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.

The Indian Army senior officers and defence experts have stated many times over that the depth of their operations would remain well below Pakistan's nuclear thresholds. This is to avoid reaching that benchmark where nuclear brinkmanship would come in to play. The problem is identification of these nuclear thresholds. There is not much written by experts about Pakistan's nuclear thresholds. I have posted an excellent paper in the previous pages which gives out the types of these thresholds under different environment.

If you people think, as many Indians think like you, that these weapons are for deterrence only and would not be used, your own armed forces would not be looking to identify nuclear thresholds and plan to remain well below these thresholds during a war. And if you still think that Pakistan would not use them, well we will have to wait for the next war, wouldn't we, to find out and wake up to the reality of a nuclear holocaust. Pakistan is prepared to use them, are you prepared to go back to stone age.

 

[Hyperion]

It's such "humble opinions" that get you killed. Do we look like bluffing? Do you think we are sane?

Furthermore, do you really believe that you guys are so innocent? Ballistic missile shields don't work my dear.... they are just feel good pills for decision makers.... we can deliver when and where, without a miss, that you can be sure of..... it just doesn't work that way that you wish that the ones with Pakistan will be a dud, and they won't reach, and ours are suppa duppa that will annihilate Pakistan.

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.

 

[ajkhan7]

Wake up Wake up ...... When pakistan uses it ... Pakistan will not wait for indian armory to enter pakistan .... and by the way the winds bring ion radiation so dont worry till mumbai india will feel it also.....

You see while you have moved 5000 tanks on cholistan border ..... pakistan is only have rangers there still ... u know the reason why..... Think ...... may be u will get the idea.....

India and Pakistan should never go to war they are nuclear now... must and have to learn to live together otherwise end of story for both.....

 

[dray]

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 .

I always had this doubt! Do you really have it or those are just green empty drums with "Nukes" written on them with red spray paints!!

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 .

Hypothetically even if India invades, it will withdraw, people will live and you will still have your country, but in case of nukes, you are guaranteed to permanently lose your country & population.
In any case we don't want any parts of Pakistan, the opposite is rather true.

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 .

The real question is, will you dare try to find that out?
Your army has tested our morale & determination several times and never found us wanting, did they? With nuclear weapons, any such future tests will be very costly.

 

[Secur]

Oh c'mon, now you won't allow me to happily troll the trolls, will you? In any case given the current state of relations between the two countries, a cold war seems to be the safest option as long as it remains cold. We had enough of actual wars (and really tired with the same monotonous repetitive outcomes ).

Now the area of concern is the perpetual habit of starting a war (most of the times) by particularly one of us!! With nuclear weapons coming into the equation, that particularly country need to be more responsible and clearly understand both the short-term and long-term implications of mis-adventurism with such deadly weapons.

See how gently I can put my views across without offending anybody!!

Now , how can I disallow anyone that ? There is near zero probability of any war between both countries in the foreseeable future , this is all hypothetical as I said previously . The relations will remain cold like this , no country for different reasons can afford to wage a war . I can assure you that the outcomes weren't so monotonous as you are led to believe but lets leave it for another thread .

Read a bit more on ' the supposed rationality ' of the nuclear states . Its again there for a reason because when odds are so high , the decisions to do misadventures are tough . Haven't we always been very responsible deterring three wars for the betterment of the people of the subcontinent ? Cmon

Just did a @Dillinger , as they say at our HQ !

 

[Secur]

I always had this doubt! Do you really have it or those are just green empty drums with "Nukes" written on them with red spray paints!!

Hypothetically even if India invades, it will withdraw, people will live and you will still have your country, but in case of nukes, you are guaranteed to permanently lose your country & population.
In any case we don't want any parts of Pakistan, the opposite is rather true.

The real question is, will you dare try to find that out?
Your army has tested our morale & determination several times and never found us wanting, did they? With nuclear weapons, any such future tests will be very costly.

Tell me , how do you test if a parachutes working fine ? . The same is true for this too .

Hypothetically , if India invades with CBG's , Pakistan's conventional firepower is more than enough to deal with it . Its a wrong assumption that Islamabad will order tactical nuclear strikes when the first Indian soldier crosses the border . Correct it out . Unless of course you claim to know the intentions of anyone/an entity , you cant really say that and cant really bank on anyone to believe that in such case . I feel that many operate on the assumption that somehow the invaders will be welcomed and be allowed to carry out their objectives ? Not really . Only us or you too ?

The first question of course is ' Is India ready to give the exact reason and provide the condition for Pakistan to dare find it out ' ? . I personally do not think so . No questions on anyone's professionalism or determination .

 

[Ganga]

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 .

That's the thing isn't it. There is nothing that is clear cut. What is the threshold? You talk about Pakistan's very existence being in doubt. But it could be much lower. Hypothetical scenario-Indian battle groups are very close to the city of Lahore (It did actually happen in 1965 but that's another story). Will Pakistan sign its own death certificate (use tactical nukes) just for one city? Most probably all captured territories would be returned post war. The point I am making is that the threshold could be much lower .

Secondly what is going to be the Indian response to a tactical attack? You really think Indian planners have not factored this point. No one really knows . But I guess it would be a tit for tat destruction of a Pakistani battle group. Or it could be the obliteration of a smaller Pakistani city like Multan or Sialkot? All these are just conjectures.

You ask whether India would risk a billion lives. I am putting a counter question. Would Pakistan be willing to destroy the entire sub-continent (Pakistan included) just because a major part of Pakistani Punjab fell into the hands of advancing Indian armies. After all its most likely that every inch will be returned to Pakistan. If India does not do so the UN and others will force India to do so.

The efficacy of nukes is always in question. Nukes did not prevent the Soviets to blockade Berlin. Nukes did not prevent the Egyptians from crossing the Suez canal into Sinai. Nukes may not prevent India from launching punitive attacks on Pakistan.
I just hope Pakistan raises the threshold of a nuclear strike if it is very low. Because when the first nuke gets fired all hell will break loose. Remember the old saying " Missiles and bullets fly both ways".

 

[dray]

@Secur You may not have your classes tomorrow but I have office So goodnight!

Don't nuke me while I am sleeping, in case your are itching for that red button, then I will give you my boss's coordinates.
But only send the North Korean ones, I don't trust Chinese!!

 

[Secur]

That's the thing isn't it. There is nothing that is clear cut. What is the threshold? You talk about Pakistan's very existence being in doubt. But it could be much lower. Hypothetical scenario-Indian battle groups are very close to the city of Lahore (It did actually happen in 1965 but that's another story). Will Pakistan sign its own death certificate (use tactical nukes) just for one city? Most probably all captured territories would be returned post war. The point I am making is that the threshold could be much lower .

Secondly what is going to be the Indian response to a tactical attack? You really think Indian planners have not factored this point. No one really knows . But I guess it would be a tit for tat destruction of a Pakistani battle group. Or it could be the obliteration of a smaller Pakistani city like Multan or Sialkot? All these are just conjectures.

You ask whether India would risk a billion lives. I am putting a counter question. Would Pakistan be willing to destroy the entire sub-continent (Pakistan included) just because a major part of Pakistani Punjab fell into the hands of advancing Indian armies. After all its most likely that every inch will be returned to Pakistan. If India does not do so the UN and others will force India to do so.

The efficacy of nukes is always in question. Nukes did not prevent the Soviets to blockade Berlin. Nukes did not prevent the Egyptians from crossing the Suez canal into Sinai. Nukes may not prevent India from launching punitive attacks on Pakistan.
I just hope Pakistan raises the threshold of a nuclear strike if it is very low. Because when the first nuke gets fired all hell will break loose. Remember the old saying " Missiles and bullets fly both ways".

Of course there is nothing , nothing whatsoever in warfare , specially the non conventional one , that is clear cut and precisely known . But , I expect one to be firm on his opinion . The threshold despite , apparently being low , isn't something available in the public domain for the people to discuss and debate on . I believe that there is a strong possibility of that happening or other threshold or red lines being crossed . Since , we cant judge intentions , we will have no choice but to consider our next response to such development . Unfortunately , you may find it hard to realize it but that isn't just one city . The fall of a city with an importance of Lahore isn't tolerable or acceptable for the Pakistani military/people , it spells something extremely disastrous next for the country . Why would we wait to find out if the enemy is continuing further or if the territories will be returned post war ? You made a point about the ' nukes being just for show ' or Islamabad not having the courage to use the weapons it has developed for its safety .

I hear no more talks about ' Cold war ' or any such limited scale conflict doctrine . Maybe , the Indian planners have realized that things have changed quite a bit after the introduction of TNW's in the already deadly mix and aren't willing to continue with the plan further . Then again , you have less to lose than Pakistan which will believe that something far worse is coming next and the Pakistani forces aren't capable enough now to handle that . What do you think is then , the response ? Its all about the thresholds and having ' what to lose ' . Dont you see ?

Yes , more than willing in such case . Never bet on it . No country will ever bank on such possibility/hope as you believe . You are now making childish assumption like you did , with your first post . Guarantee ? None .

Make it ' used to be in question ' in the past . Things have changed a lot since then . Stability-instability paradox anyone ? . When you have a geography and relatively less conventional firepower like Pakistan , you do not do this ' may be ' because the other will be ready to ' destroy and be destroyed ' . I just hope that no one tries to foolishly cross the border even with smaller force with limited objectives , declare it ' non threatening ' to the existence of Pakistan , expect no retaliation in return and for the opponent to believe ' its intentions ' . Not necessarily , no . Ever heard of ' flexible response ' ?

 

[Secur]

@Secur You may not have your classes tomorrow but I have office So goodnight!

Don't nuke me while I am sleeping, in case your are itching for that red button, then I will give you my boss's coordinates. But only send the North Korean ones, I don't trust Chinese!!

That is true . Goodnight , mate .

Sure . I am not trigger happy like the Yanks !

 

[Ganga]

Of course there is nothing , nothing whatsoever in warfare , specially the non conventional one , that is clear cut and precisely known . But , I expect one to be firm on his opinion . The threshold despite , apparently being low , isn't something available in the public domain for the people to discuss and debate on . I believe that there is a strong possibility of that happening or other threshold or red lines being crossed . Since , we cant judge intentions , we will have no choice but to consider our next response to such development . Unfortunately , you may find it hard to realize it but that isn't just one city . The fall of a city with an importance of Lahore isn't tolerable or acceptable for the Pakistani military/people , it spells something extremely disastrous next for the country . Why would we wait to find out if the enemy is continuing further or if the territories will be returned post war ? You made a point about the ' nukes being just for show ' or Islamabad not having the courage to use the weapons it has developed for its safety .

I hear no more talks about ' Cold war ' or any such limited scale conflict doctrine . Maybe , the Indian planners have realized that things have changed quite a bit after the introduction of TNW's in the already deadly mix and aren't willing to continue with the plan further . Then again , you have less to lose than Pakistan which will believe that something far worse is coming next and the Pakistani forces aren't capable enough now to handle that . What do you think is then , the response ? Its all about the thresholds and having ' what to lose ' . Dont you see ?

Yes , more than willing in such case . Never bet on it . No country will ever bank on such possibility/hope as you believe . You are now making childish assumption like you did , with your first post . Guarantee ? None .

Make it ' used to be in question ' in the past . Things have changed a lot since then . Stability-instability paradox anyone ? . When you have a geography and relatively less conventional firepower like Pakistan , you do not do this ' may be ' because the other will be ready to ' destroy and be destroyed ' . I just hope that no one tries to foolishly cross the border even with smaller force with limited objectives , declare it ' non threatening ' to the existence of Pakistan , expect no retaliation in return and for the opponent to believe ' its intentions ' . Not necessarily , no . Ever heard of ' flexible response ' ?

Cold start is very much in place. Only difference is that it has been refined to factor in new developments. That includes tactical nukes . Its now more of a- enter the country, cause maximum damage and get the hell out before the Pakistanis think their survival is at stake which may prompt them to go nuclear. The fact that the IA still believes in cold start tells you that India does not see tactical nukes as much of a threat.

All I am saying is this. Before jumping on the nuke option Pakistan must carefully weigh the benefits versus the costs.

 

[Secur]

Cold start is very much in place. Only difference is that it has been refined to factor in new developments. That includes tactical nukes . Its now more of a- enter the country, cause maximum damage and get the hell out before the Pakistanis think their survival is at stake which may prompt them to go nuclear. The fact that the IA still believes in cold start tells you that India does not see tactical nukes as much of a threat.

All I am saying is this. Before jumping on the nuke option Pakistan must carefully weigh the benefits versus the costs.

Well , doesn't look like it seeing the reports and the news coming from New Dehli . That again is your assumption , isn't it ? Again , getting the hell out of there after causing maximum damage is something which is not possible and there isn't any doubt about this part . You are now making impossible scenarios which resemble fiction more than real world possibilities . Pakistan isn't a bank where you get in , loot it and escape and get to the safe-houses , before the SWATS arrive .

All I am saying is that be assured that the planners at SPD will/do consider every option . Doubt is an unpleasant condition but certainty is absurd .

 

[Nassr]

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 .

I read his comment and opined. If he meant what you state he said, I am also saying the same thing. That is the reason the use of nuclear weapons amongst other aspects, is also majorly governed by crossing of certain thresholds. Unacceptable damage is defined as a consequence of enemy action after these thresholds are crossed. Gen Qidwai named 3-4 when he was interviewed by a group of foreigners some years ago, but this scholar Khan A. Sufyan has explained these excellently in the piece he wrote, which I posted earlier. @jaibi writes well and to follow the modern norm do seek references. However, experience at times surpasses the validity of these references.

 

[jaibi]

I read his comment and opined. If he meant what you state he said, I am also saying the same thing. That is the reason the use of nuclear weapons amongst other aspects, is also majorly governed by crossing of certain thresholds. Unacceptable damage is defined as a consequence of enemy action after these thresholds are crossed. Gen Qidwai named 3-4 when he was interviewed by a group of foreigners some years ago, but this scholar Khan A. Sufyan has explained these excellently in the piece he wrote, which I posted earlier. @jaibi writes well and to follow the modern norm do seek references. However, experience at times surpasses the validity of these references.

Everything has its place, Nassr, I am well aware of the ramifications of our nuclear capabilities I just want everyone to appreciate what that truly means how using it would be like. I want everyone to be aware of what we will unleash and then decide. That being said I told you that it's not going to happen overnight but a series of events will lead to it we should do our level best never to reach that state.

Secondly, I refer not because I lack exprience I do not know about you but I have researched on the Pakistan military, I have met a number of high ranking officers, I have friends and family serving, my nana was a WWII veteran who fought Pakistan in his PAF uniform since her inception, he lost his leg to Indian fighters. So if it is about credibility and 'experience' then I can most probably out rank you by a long shot. That being said why do I stress proof? Why do I refrain from saying: 'oooh I have sources in Pak Army, I can tell you!' like I've seen here on PDF over and over again? Because we need a criteria to judge what's being said, if we work on the model where I say A is true and you say B is true and our end synthesis would be for me A is true and for you B is true then we will head no where.

I openly welcome you to critically read whatever I say, scrutinise the references, I would be glad to learn something new even if it proves me wrong but please don't try to be an authority and end it at that.