Pakistan’s mini-nukes won’t guarantee security, only annihilation

[xyxmt]

Pervez Be-Hoodaboy

 

[Sine Nomine]

Our centrifuge technology is world class, I believe we even helped China in that field. I have read that we have also developed lazer enrichment technology thanks to Shaukat Hameed Khan. Mashallah our strategic defense is impregnable due to the efforts of AQ Khan, Dr Samarmubarkmand, Riazuddin, Rafi Choudary , Shaukat Hameed Khan etc.kudos

Yes indeed it's source of our national Pride,in fields where we have decided to move forward despite of all odds,we a developed cutting edge system.
Yes we helped china.
Ra'ad Missile it's only of it's kind in Asia.

 

[django]

Yes indeed it's source of our national Pride,in fields where we have decided to move forward despite of all odds,we a developed cutting edge system.
Yes we helped china.
Ra'ad Missile it's only of it's kind in Asia.

If only every institution in our country was effective as our military, we would be on par with south korea ,no question about it.

 

[massattack]

Why so much obsession and negative propaganda against Pakistani nukes? hmm.................they must have caused severe pain and frustration (castration) to some wannabe bravados

mini nuke sun kar Phaat Ge Indian rascals ki

Pakistan’s mini-nukes won’t guarantee security, only annihilation
Pakistan believes that dropping low-yield nukes on India will counter a conventional attack and yet the war will remain limited. This is stupid.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

That Pakistan may first use nuclear weapons in a future war with India was announced recently by Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry. Coming just two days before Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the United States in the last week of October, this could be considered a reiteration of the army’s well-known stance. But, significantly, it came from the Foreign Office rather than Army General Headquarters or Strategic Plans Division. Coming from both ends of the power spectrum, this confirms that Pakistan has drastically shifted its nuclear posture.

In the late 1980s, Pakistan had viewed nuclear weapons very differently: they were the last-ditch means to deter a possible nuclear attack by India. But Pakistan now says it intends to use low-yield nuclear bombs, also called tactical nuclear weapons, to forestall the possible advance of Indian troops into Pakistan under India’s Cold Start operational doctrine.

Floated by Gen Deepak Kapoor in 2010, Cold Start calls for cutting Pakistan into “salami slices” as punishment for hosting yet another Mumbai-style terrorist attack inside India. It assumes that this limited action would not provoke a nuclear exchange. India strenuously denies that such a doctrine is official or that it has been made operational.

This denial cut no ice across the border. In 2011 a successful test of the Nasr “shoot and scoot” short-ranged missile was announced by Inter Services Public Relations, the Pakistan military’s official voice. Ensconced inside a multiple-barrelled mobile launcher, the four 60-kilometre-range missiles are said to be tipped with nuclear warheads each roughly one-tenth the size of a Hiroshima-sized weapon. Pakistan says these tactical weapons will not destabilise the current balance or pose significant command and control problems, a claim that many believe as incorrect.

Grave escalation

Pakistan is not the first country tempted by nuclear force multipliers. Nor, as claimed by ISPR, is making small warheads a significant technical feat. In fact in the 1950s, the Americans had developed even smaller ones with sub-kiloton yields, and placed them on the Davy Crockett recoilless guns deployed at forward positions along the Turkey-USSR border. The nuclear shell, with a blast yield that would be dialled as required, could be fired by just two infantrymen. This was a tempting alternative to artillery but the Americans were eventually unnerved by the prospect of two soldiers setting off a nuclear war on their own initiative. The weapon was withdrawn and decommissioned after a few years.

Wars are fought to be won, not to be lost. So how will Pakistan’s new weapons help us win a war? This fundamental question is never even touched. But let us assume their use in a post Mumbai-II scenario. For every (small) mushroom cloud on Pakistani territory, roughly a dozen or more Indian main battle tanks and armoured vehicles would be destroyed. After many mushrooms, the invasion would stop dead in its tracks and a few thousand Indian troops would be killed. Pakistan would decisively win a battle.

But then what? With the nuclear threshold crossed for the first time since 1945, India would face one of two options: to fight on or flee. Which it will choose is impossible to predict because much will depend upon the extant political and military circumstances, as well as the personalities of the military and political leaders then in office.

Official Indian policy calls for massive retaliation. In 2013, reacting officially to Pakistan, Shyam Saran, the head of the National Security Advisory Board, declared that, “India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but if it is attacked with such weapons, it would engage in nuclear retaliation which will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage on its adversary. The label on a nuclear weapon used for attacking India, strategic or tactical, is irrelevant from the Indian perspective”.

Simply stated: whether struck by a micro-nuke or mini-nuke or city-buster, and whether on its own soil or outside its borders, India says it will consider itself under nuclear attack and react accordingly.

A tit-for-tat exchange

This is plain stupid. It violates the principle of proportionate retaliation and pushes aside the barriers to hell. But could the National Security Advisory Board be bluffing? It may be that if push comes to shove, India will not actually launch its large nuclear weapons. The sensible instinct of self-preservation might somehow prevail, and the subcontinent live to see another morning.

More likely is that in the heat of the moment, reckless passions will rage and caution will take a backseat. A tit-for-tat exchange could continue until every single weapon, small and large, is used up on either side. It is difficult to imagine how any war termination mechanism could work even if, by some miracle, the nuclear command and control centres remain intact. At the end both India and Pakistan would win, having taught the other a terrible lesson. But neither would remain habitable.

The subcontinent’s military and political leaders are not the first to believe that a nuclear war can remain limited, and perhaps even won. President Ronald Reagan puzzled over the possibility of Armageddon, uncertain whether or not God was commanding him to destroy earth or to leave it in His hands. Allen Dulles, the first CIA director, had repeatedly railed against the stupidity of those Americans, “who draw an ‘artificial’ distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and cannot realise that atomic bombs should be treated like bullets”.

Tactical nukes will not make Pakistan more secure. This dangerous programme should be immediately abandoned. Nukes may win a battle for us but at the cost of losing Pakistan. Instead our security lies in ensuring that Pakistan’s territory is not used for launching terror attacks upon our neighbours. We must explicitly renounce the use of covert war to liberate Kashmir – a fact hidden from none and recently admitted to by Gen Pervez Musharraf.

As for India: your security depends upon adopting a less belligerent attitude towards Pakistan, stopping a menacing military build-up that is spooking all your neighbours, and realising that respect is earned through economic rather than military strength.

Pakistan’s mini-nukes won’t guarantee security, only annihilation

These are tall orders for both countries. Any optimism is currently unwarranted.

nukes shabay barat per chalany kaay liay tu banay nahi, koi indian puraki karay ga mumbi attack kay sadkay tu pura mulk duba dean gae Kashimir kay sadqay, galt fehmi ma na rehana iss chakar mae... samjaay?

 

[Bhupendra Singh_Cyan]

All nukes we're primed during Kargil war and Pakistan was ready to use them if India had launched a full scale attack.
That was mentioned by Bill Clinton in TV interview, you can all search for that video.
So point being, Pakistan isn't shy if Using nukes when out of options.

Pointing and using are two different things .
Using them means say goodbye to south Asia and probably ww3

 

[Hyperion]

Well, in the end that is what will happen, as 300 dead on your side or 300 dead on our side will not lead to a nuclear or conventional confrontation (as conventional will turn to nuclear no matter what anyone say, as too many hawks on both sides) that much I'm pretty sure of, however, kargil level (ghuss bethiye style) skirmishes can not be ruled out, if another Mumbai or let's say Mumbai-in-Karchi were to happen...........

What would really stir the pot is, let's say Mumbai 2 happens and India somehow convinces the US (as UN doesn't matter) to do a blockade of Karachi, then we will have shit hitting the fan before you can say "gai bhens paani mein'".... in such a situation, back to square one / nuclear holocaust......

We can study and simulate hundreds such scenarios and the result will always be the same.... therefore, MAD or as I would like to coin a new word here PAD (Partial Assured Destruction) still holds true.

dude,

India won't respond to anything. If Mumbai attacks are repeated, India will send another dossier.

 

[Khanivore]

Let's hope that dreadful day never comes... but having said that, I think that day is not far, given the insecure feelings in India and the false sense of security they feel they have achieved through binge expenditure on hi-tech toys. Little do they realize that all that conventional arsenal will only compel Pakistan to actually do the unthinkable if faced with annihilation and invasion/occupation: full scale nuclear war.

 

[Abingdonboy]

We must explicitly renounce the use of covert war to liberate Kashmir – a fact hidden from none and recently admitted to by Gen Pervez Musharraf.

Truer words were never said. Don't give India a reason to launch military operations and it won't.

As for India: your security depends upon adopting a less belligerent attitude towards Pakistan, stopping a menacing military build-up that is spooking all your neighbours, and realising that respect is earned through economic rather than military strength.

What nonsense is this? India spends 1.78% of its GDP on defence (far less than international norms and far less than Pakistan and on par with China as a proportion of their respective GDPs. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that as India's GDP grows so will the amount spent on defence absolute terms whilst the proportion of GDP spent on defend remains STATIC. The so-called "arms build-up" (sensationalist terminology to much needed modernisation ) is as a direct result of ECONOMIC STRENGTH- India is the fastest growing economy in the world and will remain in a "boom" period for the foreseeable future.

If you actually look at the figures, India's defence spending as a proportion of GDP has actually FALLEN in the past few years- in fact it reached a historic low in 2014 (1.78% of GDP) and has remained at this level even with the new GoI. Because of the considerable growth in India's economy during that period the defence budget has grown in absolute terms.

Telling India to stop its military modernisation/arms "build up" is absolute BS on a absurd level. Pakistan is the one whose defence budget accounts for 25% of its entire national budget (>5% of its GDP) officially (but will be far higher given the power structure in Pakistan) and who is spending more than it can afford (IMF/EU bonds loans are still being taken out at enormous discount rates by the GoP).

 

[Sine Nomine]

If only every institution in our country was effective as our military, we would be on par with south korea ,no question about it.

Because there is Accountability present in these institution,culprits are dealt harshly,as i remember 8 PAF personal were hanged in 2011 due corruption.I dont think ever in 70 years any personal from civilian bureaucracy has been hanged.

 

[django]

Because there is Accountability present in these institution,culprits are dealt harshly,as i remember 8 PAF personal were hanged in 2011 due corruption.I dont think ever in 70 years any personal from civilian bureaucracy has been hanged.

Their is accountability and a great deal of discipline which is instilled in the recruits, a big must is character development in children in all households, in order for us to attain success as a nation. Parents have a big responsibility. kudos

 

[Sine Nomine]

Their is accountability and a great deal of discipline which is instilled in the recruits, a big must is character development in children in all households, in order for us to attain success as a nation. Parents have a big responsibility. kudos

Self-Accountability builds a nation by leaps and bounds.

 

[Signalian]

Floated by Gen Deepak Kapoor in 2010, Cold Start calls for cutting Pakistan into “salami slices” as punishment for hosting yet another Mumbai-style terrorist attack inside India. It assumes that this limited action would not provoke a nuclear exchange. India strenuously denies that such a doctrine is official or that it has been made operational.

Pakistan can itself use smaller brigade sized manouver groups to check indian advances in it territory. An armoured brigade sized group consisting of :

2 X Armour regiments (45 tanks each, total 90 tanks)
1 X Mech Inf Regiment (50 APC/ 900 soldiers)
1 X SP Arty Regt (18 SP Guns)
1 X SP AD Regt (shoulder based SAMS, mounted on trucks or APC)

These brigade sized groups backed by nasr missile groups can meet up with Indian Army at threatened sectors of :
Sialkot area/ Narowal
kasur
Bahawalnagar
Fort Abbas
Rahim yar Khan
Pano Aqil
Nawabshah/Umar Kot
Nagar parkar

An indian armoured thrust towards Lahore is the most dangerous as there are natural defences in the form of canals, then man made obstacles like bridges, tank traps and mines.

A Pakistani independent armoured group is at the Corps HQ disposal to be used tactically for flanking an enemy offensive or counter attack after the infantry division of the corps check an enemy advance.

The second form of checking an enemy advance is the AH-1F/S choppers which can be switched from one sector to another threatened sector within minutes. These can also be used to flank enemy forces by scouting its weak area(less AD cover). Carrying 8 ATGM's and 70mm Hydra, a formation of 3-4 AH-1 can effectively destroy 20-24 enemy tanks in one strike.The modern armies formations usually at regimental/battalion level usually stop functioning as fighting formation after 33-50% of their strength is lost and are forced to retreat and re group.

The third form of strike is the use of UCAV's by the PA. Armed with upto 2 ATGM's each, these can reach out to threatened sectors where tanks will take time to reach in the absence of AH-1F or PAF support.

Although Pakistan news channels have reported that PA tanks can use nuclear shells in their main guns, but its hard to ascertain in which sectors PA may use such ammunition and then NASR missiles. If used inside pakistan territory, the land will become contaminated and dangerous for general population to access and live.It must also be noted that an enemy armoured build up on the borders for cold start will not go un-noticed so nuclear option must be used as last resort. Pakistan has also dictated always that nuclear weapons are a deterrence against aggression.

This denial cut no ice across the border. In 2011 a successful test of the Nasr “shoot and scoot” short-ranged missile was announced by Inter Services Public Relations, the Pakistan military’s official voice. Ensconced inside a multiple-barrelled mobile launcher, the four 60-kilometre-range missiles are said to be tipped with nuclear warheads each roughly one-tenth the size of a Hiroshima-sized weapon. Pakistan says these tactical weapons will not destabilise the current balance or pose significant command and control problems, a claim that many believe as incorrect.

Common sense suggests, the reason these nukes will not destabilise the region is their target, which is not civilians or infrastructure but the armed forces which are sent and meant to be slaughtered eventually, by conventional bullets or by nukes.

Grave escalation

Pakistan is not the first country tempted by nuclear force multipliers. Nor, as claimed by ISPR, is making small warheads a significant technical feat. In fact in the 1950s, the Americans had developed even smaller ones with sub-kiloton yields, and placed them on the Davy Crockett recoilless guns deployed at forward positions along the Turkey-USSR border. The nuclear shell, with a blast yield that would be dialled as required, could be fired by just two infantrymen. This was a tempting alternative to artillery but the Americans were eventually unnerved by the prospect of two soldiers setting off a nuclear war on their own initiative. The weapon was withdrawn and decommissioned after a few years.

Wars are fought to be won, not to be lost. So how will Pakistan’s new weapons help us win a war? This fundamental question is never even touched. But let us assume their use in a post Mumbai-II scenario. For every (small) mushroom cloud on Pakistani territory, roughly a dozen or more Indian main battle tanks and armoured vehicles would be destroyed. After many mushrooms, the invasion would stop dead in its tracks and a few thousand Indian troops would be killed. Pakistan would decisively win a battle.

But then what? With the nuclear threshold crossed for the first time since 1945, India would face one of two options: to fight on or flee. Which it will choose is impossible to predict because much will depend upon the extant political and military circumstances, as well as the personalities of the military and political leaders then in office.

I have never seen such an ignorant writer who fails common sense at all levels.

Pakistan is trying to stop a war by use of nuclear deterrence, any indian misadventure will be dealt with deaths to Indian soldiers by nuclear weapons, those who will survive will be outcasted in hospitals and a medical logistic burden will become on India to cater for nuclear affected soldiers which will cost India more in the form of medical supplies and new isolated medical centers it will need to cater for radiation affected soldiers.

The question is actually: Is India ready to sacrifice its soldiers to a nuclear weapons?

Official Indian policy calls for massive retaliation. In 2013, reacting officially to Pakistan, Shyam Saran, the head of the National Security Advisory Board, declared that, “India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but if it is attacked with such weapons, it would engage in nuclear retaliation which will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage on its adversary. The label on a nuclear weapon used for attacking India, strategic or tactical, is irrelevant from the Indian perspective”.

Simply stated: whether struck by a micro-nuke or mini-nuke or city-buster, and whether on its own soil or outside its borders, India says it will consider itself under nuclear attack and react accordingly.

Yes you dumb writer, when India knows the response its soldiers will get is exposure to nuclear weapons, will India attack to risk a nuclear war?

Pakistan has decisively given the option in india's hand to let go of its stupid doctrine which can lead to a nuclear war.

A tit-for-tat exchange


This is plain stupid. It violates the principle of proportionate retaliation and pushes aside the barriers to hell. But could the National Security Advisory Board be bluffing? It may be that if push comes to shove, India will not actually launch its large nuclear weapons. The sensible instinct of self-preservation might somehow prevail, and the subcontinent live to see another morning.

More likely is that in the heat of the moment, reckless passions will rage and caution will take a backseat. A tit-for-tat exchange could continue until every single weapon, small and large, is used up on either side. It is difficult to imagine how any war termination mechanism could work even if, by some miracle, the nuclear command and control centres remain intact. At the end both India and Pakistan would win, having taught the other a terrible lesson. But neither would remain habitable.

The subcontinent’s military and political leaders are not the first to believe that a nuclear war can remain limited, and perhaps even won. President Ronald Reagan puzzled over the possibility of Armageddon, uncertain whether or not God was commanding him to destroy earth or to leave it in His hands. Allen Dulles, the first CIA director, had repeatedly railed against the stupidity of those Americans, “who draw an ‘artificial’ distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and cannot realise that atomic bombs should be treated like bullets”.

Tactical nukes will not make Pakistan more secure. This dangerous programme should be immediately abandoned. Nukes may win a battle for us but at the cost of losing Pakistan. Instead our security lies in ensuring that Pakistan’s territory is not used for launching terror attacks upon our neighbours. We must explicitly renounce the use of covert war to liberate Kashmir – a fact hidden from none and recently admitted to by Gen Pervez Musharraf.

As for India: your security depends upon adopting a less belligerent attitude towards Pakistan, stopping a menacing military build-up that is spooking all your neighbours, and realising that respect is earned through economic rather than military strength.

Pakistan’s mini-nukes won’t guarantee security, only annihilation

These are tall orders for both countries. Any optimism is currently unwarranted.

What this dumb article writer fails to realise is that Pakistan has already secured and stopped a threatening war from india.The cold start doctrine clearly shows that Indian aggression knows no limits. whereas Pakistan has effectively put forward a solution to make India think twice before it commits its soldiers on pakistani soil.