Pakistan's Hatf 9 promoted as a counter to India's Prahaar

[Secur]

For operation Brasstacks, ask you know was a military exercise. Why it was not converted into a thrust into Pakistan, my previous answer stands. What would be the objective of that war? At that time, Pakistan did not have a confirmed nuclear capability.
For operation Parakram, most folks were not even convinced on its necessity. Also, it was not very effective and didn't have the quick deployment required for the so called CSD. It ended up as mere posturing.


For 26/11, India got substantial diplomatic gains for its stand, but it would have tested the limits of tolerance of the decision makers. Again for the so called CSD to be successful, it would have required a surprise factor. In this case, there would have been a possible preventive build up done by PA. Am just speculating here.

I am arguing much beyond my knowledge levels. But...
I just looked up what comes into the 40-50 km belt. Now if Lahore was under threat, I'd understand. But I don't see much problem near Rajasthan.

One other thing I am not considering with the information available of the objectives of CSD is that it calls for "breaking" of Pakistan's war fighting ability. I have no idea how that is done.

When you bring almost of all your army to the borders , what objective it would have ? Except for war , not unless you are here to convince me naively that almost all Indian troops had to practice near the International Border with Pakistan ? Op.Brasstacks had been thought as a military exercise which was too be converted into blitzkrieg assault to break Pakistan into two geographically by cutting the G.T. Road . Islamabad didn't have a confirmed nuclear capability but the warning for ' nuclear strike ' to their counterparts was there , which acted as a deterrent , you can find it in the public domain . Though , Sundarji declined any of that intention , the Western Commander P.N Hoon had something else to say , quite constant with Pakistani POV .
Brasstacks was no military exercise. It was a plan to build up a situation for a fourth war with Pakistan. And, what is even more shocking is that the Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, was not aware of these plans.—Lieutenant General P.N. Hoon, Commander Western Command .

Yes , it was . By the time IA reached the border , the PA was already there to greet them . But what stopped them wasn't the conventional firepower , it was the nuclear weapon that again acted as an deterrent . The same is being put to use again to make CSD ineffective and flawed though it isn't deployed yet and Pakistan's mobilization time is faster than Indians .

You are making me laugh now , honestly . What do you mean by " I do not see a problem " and neither should Pakistan ? A country's thresholds aren't related and its nuclear posture will not change on any assurance or guarantee by the enemy . See , how silly it sounds telling us " Welcome us ! We are coming to invade you " and our intentions are to teach a lesson . You have my firm assurance for " it doesn't work like that " It means to curtail the capability of an adversary so that it isn't able to fight effectively anymore .

Ok lets talk on theoretic terms, since you chose to disapprove the more realistic view.

Now tell me honestly, what capacity you think would be left in pakistan to retaliate at a scale to severely destroy land mass such as India?

Let me ask you now whats unrealistic about confirming that Pakistan will not play on Indian terms on its own soil ? Well that depends , how much you underestimate the enemy having the seventh largest army which has 100-120 nuclear warheads too . Not every inch of a country needs to be nuked to end its existence or inflict " unacceptable damage " .

 

[HRK]

This is worth a read.

Any link ...??

 

[energym]

With regard to nuclear overhang. Not much.
Its still the last and most potent guarantor of Pakistani security.

I was merely talking about the conventional aspects. Over the last two decades, Pakistan has failed to keep matching India in modernization of Armed Forces. Maybe its because of the economy, but Indian forces have/are modernizing much faster than Pakistan's. And that is creating a wider conventional gap.

At the end of the day whether that gap is used or not is still hazy because of the nuclear weapons. This gap will initself cause lowering of red lines by Pakistan.

 

[PoKeMon]

Let me ask you now whats unrealistic about confirming that Pakistan will not play on Indian terms on its own soil ? Well that depends , how much you underestimate the enemy having the seventh largest army which has 100-120 nuclear warheads too . Not every inch of a country needs to be nuked to end its existence or inflict " unacceptable damage " .

You didn't answer my question Secur.

Since in case of a Nasr attack, it would actually be India who would be doing the first nuke strike effectively(assuming nasr attack as non damaging to indian strategic forces capability), what capability you think would be left in pakistan to retaliate effective?

Even going by your logic that pak need not to nuke each and every inch of indian soil, but still I can say atleast 40-50 strikes would be required to get some relevant damage considering total annihilation of pak.

I am all ears to listen how much you over estimate the pak bravado and capabilities.

 

[Secur]

Odds are the response would be low yield nukes on the battalion that launched the Pakistani nukes or a retaliatory strike on the base and NOT a full blown strategic strike by India.

Step by step escalation by India.

In both cases Secur, Pakistan would have been bombed by low yield nukes at minimum twice - once by itself, second by India.

And Joe I beleive has explained that tac nukes are not very effective particularly since Indian BMP and tanks are NBC proof and would expect it.

Contrarian , then it doesn't fit with your nuclear doctrine which your countrymen are so eager to remind me of , again and again , without understanding its limitations . Islamabad will use the Tactical Nukes when its conventional forces fail to deliver , to deliver a message to the enemy and check its response . More knowledgeable members are of the opinion that once the first TNW is detonated , the entire SPD will go to high alert and immediate launch state quickly and wait for Indian response . Now if the response is ' retreat ' then its fine otherwise we are doomed already , actually you are just upping the escalation and increase the chances for MAD . This is how its looking like . A " flexible response " , I said earlier , would have been a different game altogether , making things difficult for Pakistan . At the moment , the Indian Army is constrained by its own declared doctrine . The effectiveness of the tactical nukes is limited due to its low yields but it has the potential to stop the enemy dead in its tracks psychologically and deliver a message for what is going to happen next and threshold is crossed - NBC proof doesn't mean that it would withstand the explosion also .

You didn't answer my question Secur.

Since in case of a Nasr attack, it would actually be India who would be doing the first nuke strike effectively(assuming nasr attack as non damaging to indian strategic forces capability), what capability you think would be left in pakistan to retaliate effective?

Even going by your logic that pak need not to nuke each and every inch of indian soil, but still I can say atleast 40-50 strikes would be required to get some relevant damage considering total annihilation of pak.

I am all ears to listen how much you over estimate the pak bravado and capabilities.

You didn't even explain what you were trying to imply after repeating the nuclear doctrine again without understanding my post that Pakistan will not play by Indian rules on its own soil . How exactly do you assume that the Indian strike would be able to ' completely neutralize the Pakistani capability of launching nukes ' ? Lets hear it first .

No , see my last post and the SPD response after the initial TNW attack , they wouldn't be waiting for the Indians to destroy the infrastructure and deprive them of the opportunity to launch nukes . In case of use em or lose em , Islamabad will ' use em ' seeing its resolve previously .

I am not overestimating anything on my side , I recognize the geographical vulnerability and the conventional disparity just fine , which is why our thresholds are lower than yours and we are more likely to be one to pull the trigger first . The point is that a limited scale conflict isn't the answer to Pakistani nuclear weapons after New Delhi's realization of the fact that ' there's no victory gonna be achieved in all out war ' mobilizing its troops , seeing the adversary's response and then withdrawing itself in both '87 and '01 and that is how why it was conceived , however the signal from my country is that the thresholds have gone further down to make up for the conventional disparity . You see , how Indian Govt didn't even bother to repeat Op.Parakram after Mumbai attacks ?

 

[Contrarian]

Contrarian , then it doesn't fit with your nuclear doctrine which your countrymen are so eager to remind me of , again and again , without understanding its limitations . Islamabad will use the Tactical Nukes when its conventional forces fail to deliver , to deliver a message to the enemy and check its response . More knowledgeable members are of the opinion that once the first TNW is detonated , the entire SPD will go to high alert and immediate launch state quickly and wait for Indian response . Now if the response is ' retreat ' then its fine otherwise we are doomed already , actually you are just upping the escalation and increase the chances for MAD . This is how its looking like . A " flexible response " , I said earlier , would have been a different game altogether , making things difficult for Pakistan . At the moment , the Indian Army is constrained by its own declared doctrine .

The declared doctrine says India reserves the right to strike fully in case of any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Indian forces anywhere.

However I said for practical purposes, and based on some amount of talk with relevant people, the idea is that if push comes to shove and a nuke is used by Pakistan on an incoming force, the response would be a step by step escalation.
An immediate full scale retaliation would foreclose any level of sanity.

Their goal:
A reply in kind(low yield) on the attacking force - that launched the nukes and/or a low yield attack on the home base/most important base of PA.

In such a situation, Pakistan would be under massive pressure to come to table on Indian terms. The idea is not to anhilate Pakistan and get a majority of Indian population wiped out. The idea is to force Pakistan to something.
At the minimum Pakistan would have launched one nuke on its own soil, a 1-2 low yield nukes in retaliation by India on Pakistan. Then wait with a list of demands.
That would leave the ball in Pakistani generals court. Do they wish to continue this or accept Indian terms more or less.

The consensus at this point is that the PA Generals would like to see their sons and daughters safe in lieu of their pride.

What this does is also reverse the Pakistani gun on India's head - of lobbing the ball in India's court - whether it wishes to risk the a vast number of its populace by launching a full scale retaliation in response to a few thousands casualty of the Army.

The effectiveness of the tactical nukes is limited due to its low yields but it has the potential to stop the enemy dead in its tracks psychologically and deliver a message for what is going to happen next and threshold is crossed - NBC proof doesn't mean that it would withstand the explosion also .

Thats exactly the point. The blast radius is not that big and with the vehicles spaced out the casualty rate is not high at all.
Read up - I believe Joe or someone on the forum itself gave very specific calculations.

 

[Secur]

In such a situation, Pakistan would be under massive pressure to come to table on Indian terms. The idea is not to anhilate Pakistan and get a majority of Indian population wiped out. The idea is to force Pakistan to something.
At the minimum Pakistan would have launched one nuke on its own soil, a 1-2 low yield nukes in retaliation by India on Pakistan. Then wait with a list of demands.
That would leave the ball in Pakistani generals court. Do they wish to continue this or accept Indian terms more or less.
The consensus at this point is that the PA Generals would like to see their sons and daughters safe in lieu of their pride.

In such a situation if the flexible response is adopted , the window of sanity might be granted a little more time , but you do not understand the Pakistani stand here . The geographical vulnerability of the country is due to the placement of important cities/towns/infrastructure being too close to the Indian border hence naturally it is extremely difficult to gauge ' Indian ' intentions and make it more likely to pull the trigger due to its ' low thresholds ' . Do you believe that we would believe that your idea is not to annihilate my country ? Seriously , is that a joke that I do not understand ? What if the list itself crosses any thresholds , like the Indians are found asking for some areas in return ? Is it going to happen ? I do no think so . The country's integrity and existence is the important thing here .

The thing is whatever you do further , its just ups the ' escalation risk ' and more nervousness on the already vulnerable adversary's part and will contribute to the eventual MAD . The consensus is wrong and childish actually and based on the same ' underestimating the opponent and the usual venom against PA ' and seems more like some sort of character assassination , nothing more .

 

[Contrarian]

In such a situation if the flexible response is adopted , the window of sanity might be granted a little more time , but you do not understand the Pakistani stand here . The geographical vulnerability of the country is due to the placement of important cities/towns/infrastructure being too close to the Indian border hence naturally it is extremely difficult to gauge ' Indian ' intentions and make it more likely to pull the trigger due to its ' low thresholds ' . Do you believe that we would believe that your idea is not to annihilate my country ? Seriously , is that a joke that I do not understand ?

Ceasefire always happens in all the wars we have fought. A cease fire is inevitably based on the logic that both sides agree and know that the other would stop firing after signing this document. The terms of the document however differ from case to case.
There are international powers that would be ready to back the ceasefire.
What you pointed out is a non issue.

The thing is whatever you do further , its just ups the ' escalation risk ' and more nervousness on the already vulnerable adversary's part and will contribute to the eventual MAD . The consensus is wrong and childish actually and based on the same ' underestimating the opponent and the usual venom against PA ' , nothing more .

The idea simply is to turn the gun that PA is pointing at India's head after launching its low yield strike asking whether or not India is willing to risk millions in exchange for thousands back on to Pakistan.
Are PA Generals willing to risk hundreds of millions of Pakistani's in exchange for wounded pride, a destroyed army and the terms that India wants. Those terms however would necessarily include survival of Pakistan as a country - else the PA/Authority would never agree and it would be back to compulsory MAD.

 

[Secur]

Ceasefire always happens in all the wars we have fought. A cease fire is inevitably based on the logic that both sides agree and know that the other would stop firing after signing this document. The terms of the document however differ from case to case.
There are international powers that would be ready to back the ceasefire.
What you pointed out is a non issue.



The idea simply is to turn the gun that PA is pointing at India's head after launching its low yield strike asking whether or not India is willing to risk millions in exchange for thousands back on to Pakistan.
Are PA Generals willing to risk hundreds of millions of Pakistani's in exchange for wounded pride, a destroyed army and the terms that India wants. Those terms however would necessarily include survival of Pakistan as a country - else the PA/Authority would never agree.

Yes it does , but there will only be a rare chance of ceasefire if it comes to nuclear exchange . The International powers or any guarantee from anyone will not convince Pakistanis of your intentions , Islamabad will not play by your rules and what we are talking about , is what happens before the ceasefire is even thought of . Actually , what I pointed out is the most important issue , we are still more likely to pull the trigger first due to our limitations . Do you want me to believe that Indians will assure Pakistanis of their intention to teach it a lesson and not destroy it and they will take your word and let you invade them ? Seriously , whats with the Indians lately ?

I know what its about , but it simply puts us on a higher place , in the nuclear escalation ladder . The answer here is that the state of Pakistan will not lob a nuke , at the drop of a hat . They are last resort weapons if the conventional forces fail to deliver . It will do so , when one of its nuclear thresholds are crossed . So , at that time , when the country's existence or integrity is threatened , yes we would be willing to risk anything . Use em or lose em , the country will choose the former . Saying that the CSD doesn't cross any Pakistani nuclear threshold is an argument made in ignorance actually .

 

[Contrarian]

Yes it does , but there will only be a rare chance of ceasefire if it comes to nuclear exchange . The International powers or any guarantee from anyone will not convince Pakistanis of your intentions , Islamabad will not play by your rules and what we are talking about , is what happens before the ceasefire is even thought of . Actually , what I pointed out is the most important issue , we are still more likely to pull the trigger first due to our limitations . Do you want me to believe that Indians will assure Pakistanis of their intention to teach it a lesson and not destroy it and they will take your word and let you invade them ? Seriously , whats with the Indians lately ?

I know what its about , but it simply puts us on a higher place , in the nuclear escalation ladder . The answer here is that the state of Pakistan will not lob a nuke , at the drop of a hat . They are last resort weapons if the conventional forces fail to deliver . It will do so , when one of its nuclear thresholds are crossed . So , at that time , when the country's existence or integrity is threatened , yes we would be willing to risk anything . Use em or lose em , the country will choose the former .

This is where your logic is faltering friend.
Pakistan will use nukes only as a last resort - agreed.

At that point of time, Pakistan would automatically be under the threat of existence before it uses the weapon - agreed.

What you are not getting is that assurance of existence of Pakistan is very easily assured by international powers. That means the honesty of the Indian ceasefire offer - which is what you are doubting - is assured by others - allies of Pakistan included.
Would PA be prepared to use them and lose the country/their kids - what they have been fighting to protect.
Or would they be amenable to letting their country live as a sovereign nation under some limitations and a guarantee of multinational powers of an actual ceasefire.

 

[Secur]

What you are not getting is that assurance of existence of Pakistan is very easily assured by international powers. That means the honesty of the Indian ceasefire offer - which is what you are doubting - is assured by others - allies of Pakistan included.
Would PA be prepared to use them and lose the country/their kids - what they have been fighting to protect.

Mate , its getting funnier post by post now . Its pointless though , since a lot would have had happened before the ceasefire even comes in the mind . The existence and integrity of the country isn't guaranteed by International powers or any assurance from the adversary itself - that is the point . Whatever you say , Islamabad will not take any Indian guarantee and let them invade the country to teach it a lesson . It sounds silly even talking about it , mate , let alone belief it .

I answered it already , the answer lies in ' when they fire the nukes , one or more threshold has already been crossed ' , not before , so it really doesn't matter then . Forget this making Pakistan live on your terms , its simply not possible . A dilemma for the adversary is here though , preventing it from crossing the border in the first place and well that is sufficient . The same I can ask you , would the Indians risk invading Pakistan's territory for any reason whatsoever looking at the risk to their country/ own children of army personnel ?

 

[Contrarian]

Mate , its getting funnier post by post now . Its pointless though , since a lot would have had happened before the ceasefire even comes in the mind . The existence and integrity of the country isn't guaranteed by International powers or any assurance from the adversary itself - that is the point . Whatever you say , Islamabad will not take any Indian guarantee and let them invade the country to teach it a lesson . It sounds silly even talking about it , mate , let alone belief it .

I answered it already , the answer lies in ' when they fire the nukes , one or more threshold has already been crossed ' , not before , so it really doesn't matter then . Forget this making Pakistan live on your terms , its simply not possible . A dilemma for the adversary is here though , preventing it from crossing the border in the first place and well that is sufficient . The same I can ask you , would the Indians risk invading Pakistan's territory for any reason whatsoever looking at the risk to their country/ own children of army personnel ?

Yes. Unequivocally.
Terrorist strikes would force the Govts hand. Another Mumbai like attack if traced to Pakistani land would mean trouble for us all.

 

[Secur]

Yes. Unequivocally.
Terrorist strikes would force the Govts hand. Another Mumbai like attack if traced to Pakistani land would mean trouble for us all.

Depends on what you have to lose , agree to disagree on that , because I do not think so .

 

[ssethii]

offence is the ultimate defense.

 

[indiatester]

When you bring almost of all your army to the borders , what objective it would have ? Except for war , not unless you are here to convince me naively that almost all Indian troops had to practice near the International Border with Pakistan ? Op.Brasstacks had been thought as a military exercise which was too be converted into blitzkrieg assault to break Pakistan into two geographically by cutting the G.T. Road . Islamabad didn't have a confirmed nuclear capability but the warning for ' nuclear strike ' to their counterparts was there , which acted as a deterrent , you can find it in the public domain . Though , Sundarji declined any of that intention , the Western Commander P.N Hoon had something else to say , quite constant with Pakistani POV .
Brasstacks was no military exercise. It was a plan to build up a situation for a fourth war with Pakistan. And, what is even more shocking is that the Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, was not aware of these plans.—Lieutenant General P.N. Hoon, Commander Western Command .

Yes , it was . By the time IA reached the border , the PA was already there to greet them . But what stopped them wasn't the conventional firepower , it was the nuclear weapon that again acted as an deterrent . The same is being put to use again to make CSD ineffective and flawed though it isn't deployed yet and Pakistan's mobilization time is faster than Indians .

Now you are putting great belief into the threat of nuclear strike. There have been opportunities for India to scuttle the nuclear program itself. You would be aware of the Morarji Desai loose lips case. India was very sure that Pakistan did not have a weapon then.

You are making me laugh now , honestly . What do you mean by " I do not see a problem " and neither should Pakistan ? A country's thresholds aren't related and its nuclear posture will not change on any assurance or guarantee by the enemy . See , how silly it sounds telling us " Welcome us ! We are coming to invade you " and our intentions are to teach a lesson . You have my firm assurance for " it doesn't work like that " It means to curtail the capability of an adversary so that it isn't able to fight effectively anymore .

Pakistan occupied Kargil. People did not go nuclear then.
India militarized Siachin. Pakistan did not go nuclear.

There are always thresholds that cause you to go nuclear. Your threshold might be different, but there will be some level of damage that causes pain, but not so much pain to go all crazy.