Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

[Ticker]

"For the United States, the nightmare scenario is that some of Pakistan's warheads or its fissile material falls into the hands of the Taliban or al Qaeda -- or, worse, that the whole country falls into the hands of the Taliban.


The CIA will train these illiterate Taliban how to steal the nuclear waste, create a dirty bomb and do this false flag operation. This is a very high possibility.

After this line, all the author says is typical American rant that India is shining and Pakistan is sinking.

India shone during BJP era and darkness fell on BJP.

Since then, Congress has never even talked about shining India. They just did Zardari, and look where the level of corruption has reached.

Don't bother -they are not shining anytime soon, till BJP returns and shine it again.

 

[Riteon]

dont worry we all know that, but we are still here ready for the fourth one
Wars are not fought to be won

What are wars fought for ??

India shone during BJP era and darkness fell on BJP.

Since then, Congress has never even talked about shining India. They just did Zardari, and look where the level of corruption has reached.

Don't bother -they are not shining anytime soon, till BJP returns and shine it again.

That should be patented....................they just did ZARdari !!

Funnily enough, it was the Americans who used nuke on civilians (twice I believe). They happen to be the only "responsible" nuclear power to have done so. One thing 'irresponsible' nuclear powers such as China, Russia, North Korea and Pakistan etc failed to do.

Nuclear tech spreading ??

 

[Solomon2]

I don't know if Pakistan is developing battlefield nukes or not but it seems like a terrible idea for Pakistan to deploy these for if India responds Pakistan will be at a distinct disadvantage at the levels of theater and operational strategy. Battlefield nukes are short-range, for destroying tank and troop concentrations. The India-Pakistan border is not the Siegfried line or the Fulda Gap; in a projected battle with India they can't easily be applied to preventing an Indian invasion. Instead battlefield nukes can only be employed where Indian troops will be concentrating afterward. Think 1965.

That is, the ultimate use of Pakistan's battlefield nukes would be to destroy Lahore.

 

[Ticker]

That should be patented....................they just did ZARdari !!

All the time you guys say that we are the same people.

When I can be called a high class Brahmin Banya, why can't you do a Zardari as well.

 

[pk_baloch]

All the time you guys say that we are the same people.

we are not the same people ......

 

[The Deterrent]

I don't know if Pakistan is developing battlefield nukes or not but it seems like a terrible idea for Pakistan to deploy these for if India responds Pakistan will be at a distinct disadvantage at the levels of theater and operational strategy. Battlefield nukes are short-range, for destroying tank and troop concentrations. The India-Pakistan border is not the Siegfried line or the Fulda Gap; in a projected battle with India they can't easily be applied to preventing an Indian invasion. Instead battlefield nukes can only be employed where Indian troops will be concentrating afterward. Think 1965.

That is, the ultimate use of Pakistan's battlefield nukes would be to destroy Lahore.

Exactly. Pakistan's purpose of development of battlefield nukes is being misunderstood.
The purpose of developing Nasr was to nuke a possible enemy military infrastructure, which had been set up on occupied Pakistani territory, as a result of a defeat in a possible war with India.

But if we are to see its use on advancing troops, it will be of very little physical advantage at a very high cost. But it will most definitely send the final message.

 

[Ticker]

I don't know if Pakistan is developing battlefield nukes or not but it seems like a terrible idea for Pakistan to deploy these for if India responds Pakistan will be at a distinct disadvantage at the levels of theater and operational strategy. Battlefield nukes are short-range, for destroying tank and troop concentrations. The India-Pakistan border is not the Siegfried line or the Fulda Gap; in a projected battle with India they can't easily be applied to preventing an Indian invasion. Instead battlefield nukes can only be employed where Indian troops will be concentrating afterward. Think 1965.

That is, the ultimate use of Pakistan's battlefield nukes would be to destroy Lahore.

Classic incoherent rumble from a far away South Asian expert who visits Islamabad and Delhi twice a year.

Why do you think that a nuclear strike would only be launched on advancing Indian formations. It could be one devastating strike, targeting 100s of Indian cities while engaging Indian troop concentrations with tactical weapons because of their proximity to Pakistani border.

Let me post excerpts from an article written by Khan A. Sufyan, Exploring Pakistan's Nuclear Thresholds.

Read if you have time and educate yourself a bit. ....................................

>>>Pakistan�s declared nuclear format clearly indicates deterrence against conventional as well as nuclear threat. To provide credibility to such deterrence a full spectrum response capability is essential which also devolves around the principle difference between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and tactical use of nuclear weapons.

A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre-emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles.

An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure.

In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map.

Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place.>>>>

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...uclear-thresholds-analysis.html#ixzz25hW5CV1e

Exactly. Pakistan's purpose of development of battlefield nukes is being misunderstood.
The purpose of developing Nasr was to nuke a possible enemy military infrastructure, which had been set up on occupied Pakistani territory, as a result of a defeat in a possible war with India.

But if we are to see its use on advancing troops, it will be of very little physical advantage at a very high cost. But it will most definitely send the final message.

But there could be other options too .......

 

[Solomon2]

Classic incoherent rumble from a far away South Asian expert who visits Islamabad and Delhi twice a year...Let me post excerpts from an article written by Khan A. Sufyan -

Do you even read what you post? I'm a bit blunter than Sufyan but translated into ordinary language he's saying the same thing: the battlefield nukes are for destroying Lahore.

 

[Ticker]

we are not the same people ......

Yes we are not.

I said, they say it again and again that we are the same people.

 

[The Deterrent]

But there could be other options too .......

For example?
IMO, employing them at Sea would be better at first.

 

[Ticker]

Do you even read what you post? I'm a bit blunter than Sufyan but translated into ordinary language he's saying the same thing: the battlefield nukes are for destroying Lahore.

ha ha ha ......

He never said that. Your bluntness has passed through some damaged brain cells.

You posted the reply so quickly - how could you read and understand what he wrote in a jiffy.

hmmmm ..... damaged comprehension cells as well.

Do you even read what you post? I'm a bit blunter than Sufyan but translated into ordinary language he's saying the same thing: the battlefield nukes are for destroying Lahore.

 

[ares]

If I were to use nuclear weapons especially against country as big as India(which as declared NO first use but a guaranteed massive retaliation policy), I would want to make sure, I use this opportunity to cause maximum damage the in the first strike.
For Indian policy of massive retaliation ensures there might not be second strike. I would not want to waste my free first hit on a small battlefield nuke.

 

[Ticker]

For example?
IMO, employing them at Sea would be better at first.

Yes why not.

This could be another option.

Use of tactical nuclear weapons against an enemy's naval blockade.

Think about some more.

 

[Solomon2]

ha ha ha ...... He never said that. .

"An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured."

He's talking Lahore, Ticker.

I suppose the ERT need not include destroying Lahore under certain conditions. If India and Pakistan were to sign an agreement not to develop or deploy battlefield nukes an ERT would necessarily include Indian cities. The deterrent effect of this ban would obviously be greater than that gained by the deployment of Pakistani battlefield nukes.

 

[Ticker]

If I were to use nuclear weapons especially against country as big as India(which as declared NO first use but a guaranteed massive retaliation policy), I would want to make sure, I use this opportunity to cause maximum damage the in the first strike.
For Indian policy of massive retaliation ensures there might not be second strike. I would not want to waste my free first hit on a small battlefield nuke.

Agreed.

That is why it may not be a solely tactical nuke strike against Indian troop concentrations, and could be one massive strike against 100s of Indian cities as well as tactical nuclear strikes against Indian troop concentrations because of nearness of Pakistani border.