Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

[airmarshal]

War is a dirty business. Leaving aside jingoism, there will be millions of lives lost and permanently affected.

So its better to have nuclear weapons for deterrence with the wish that they be not used ever. Talking war is good but actually doing it is ugly. May peace prevail everywhere.

 

[Agent_47]

Rather, blast the credibility of the author and his retarded mind frame!

When someone tells truth on your face,its better to shout its a lie lie...and make everyone think its a lie rather than trying the old trick the author is A$$ or its a cheap blog is not gona work here kid

http://pulitzercenter.org/people/tom-hundley

 

[Ticker]

"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.

He never said that Pakistan would nuke its own city - he said an early response would be resorted to, when sensitive cities of psycho-social etc importance are threatened or captured. The response would be on Indian targets. There would be millions of Pakistanis in Lahore city, even lets say if it was captured - why would Pakistan kill more of its own in order to kill less number of Indian troops. This is frivolous interpretation. ha ha ha .....

This is neither Fulda Gap environment or other similar environment where American citizens were not involved at all. This is Pakistani territory with Pakistani citizens involved, not German citizens, death of whom would not hurt the Americans - why do you think such a strategy was rejected by the Germans in the first place.

ha ha ha ..... ludicrous.

 

[Ticker]

War is a dirty business. Leaving aside jingoism, there will be millions of lives lost and permanently affected.

So its better to have nuclear weapons for deterrence with the wish that they be not used ever. Talking war is good but actually doing it is ugly. May peace prevail everywhere.

Deterrence can only be achieved if the capability, credibility and the will can be displayed. If as a nuclear weapon power, you do not have the will to use these, don't have them.

 

[Solomon2]

He never said that Pakistan would nuke its own city - he said an early response would be resorted to, when sensitive cities of psycho-social etc importance are threatened or captured. The response would be on Indian targets...ha ha ha....ludicrous.

Hopefully your countrymen will read the article with greater perspicacity and knowledge than you have. What did you think "Strategic depth" is for? Pakistan isn't a country with an army but an army in possession of a country. That's not going to change unless you work for it.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Well i would rather say, Pakistan's Terrific Idea to Develop Battlefield Nukes

I think that says it all and why also.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Well i would rather say, Pakistan's Terrific Idea to Develop Battlefield Nukes

I think that says it all and why also.

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

War is a dirty business. Leaving aside jingoism, there will be millions of lives lost and permanently affected.

So its better to have nuclear weapons for deterrence with the wish that they be not used ever. Talking war is good but actually doing it is ugly. May peace prevail everywhere.

Completely agree with your Point, I hope Peace Prevails and Sub-Continent prospers.
Pakistan needs to throw out Military leadership

 

[Abingdonboy]

I really wish that the West would "de-link" India and Pakistan. It is only through the wishes of the Pakstani side that the two are still compared again and again. India has moved beyond Paksitan and this narrative, with an economy 8-9 times larger growing at an impressive rate with ambitions of global stardom and a military to match this continually comparing India and Pakistan is humiliating for both sides. I have said it before but I'll say it again- you wouldn't compare India to Beligum who has a similar defence expediture and GDP to Pakstan (in fairness to Beligum it has a significantly larger GDP and slightly higher defence budget but it is relatively close to Pakistan.). It is unfortunate geography for the two nations to cotinuously be compared like this.


The author makes the point that "their is a potential for an arms race between India and Pakistan" making out this as happend already. If we look at the reality we will see that any potential race between these two has already been won by India whether it is size of conventional forces,delivery systems for nukes, economy, economic growth etc and the gap between the two is only increasing day by day and at this point and in the future is now complety unbridgable. Despite this, for reasons stated in the article, Pakstan makes the most nukes every year of any nation but India lets this happen and despite having the resources and stockpile of material avaloble does nothing in response. This highlights who fears who more.


Now I'm not a Pakistani but I feel if I was I'd be incredibly unhappy with my nation being continuously compared and belittled in this way. Pakistan shouldn't be compared to India but Bangledsh,Afghanistan, Tajikstan,Turkey etc it is unfair for all involved.

My two cents anyway.

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.

Umm, hardly- it was Dr MMS back in '91 when Convress were in power who started the reforms, and over the last 20 years when India has averaged 8-9% growth for 8 years the country as been under Congress rule with Dr MMS at the helm. I'm not a Cngress supporter but you can't put out this nonsense and expect it to go unchallenged.

 

[Riteon]

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.

Tactical nukes are utter useless if its to be used as you say !!! Any fiuture indo pak war wont go for more than 2-3 weeks .

The moment any nation feels they are loosing ...there is high probablity of a nuke warfare....hence India [having no first use policy ] will limit the war to Fast and small gains.....push ,occupy a large area..and hold it ....................hence PA will use the nuke for theatre warfare ..to take down a armour regiment or site of paratroopers or radiate an area to prevent enemy access taking into consideration the amplified effect of fall radiation on the enemies .........

therefore ay war by India will require ot to be very fast ,and large gains before the Chain command in pakistan can launch a counter attack or the international presseure falls heavy




Its is for these scenarios [ COld start i think ] that Tactical Nukes are planned.............but once used India is free from her No forst use policy..............ahhh yahooo nuclear winter

 

[OrionHunter]

Getting half your airforce destroyed every time doesnt count as victory?

I thought this post was supposed to be in the humor forum? What the dickens is it doing here?

 

[TaimiKhan]

I really wish that the West would "de-link" India and Pakistan. It is only through the wishes of the Pakstani side that the two are still compared again and again. India has moved beyond Paksitan and this narrative, with an economy 8-9 times larger growing at an impressive rate with ambitions of global stardom and a military to match this continually comparing India and Pakistan is humiliating for both sides. I have said it before but I'll say it again- you wouldn't compare India to Beligum who has a similar defence expediture and GDP to Pakstan (in fairness to Beligum it has a significantly larger GDP and slightly higher defence budget but it is relatively close to Pakistan.). It is unfortunate geography for the two nations to cotinuously be compared like this.


The author makes the point that "their is a potential for an arms race between India and Pakistan" making out this as happend already. If we look at the reality we will see that any potential race between these two has already been won by India whether it is size of conventional forces,delivery systems for nukes, economy, economic growth etc and the gap between the two is only increasing day by day and at this point and in the future is now complety unbridgable. Despite this, for reasons stated in the article, Pakstan makes the most nukes every year of any nation but India lets this happen and despite having the resources and stockpile of material avaloble does nothing in response. This highlights who fears who more.


Now I'm not a Pakistani but I feel if I was I'd be incredibly unhappy with my nation being continuously compared and belittled in this way. Pakistan shouldn't be compared to India but Bangledsh,Afghanistan, Tajikstan,Turkey etc it is unfair for all involved.

My two cents anyway.

I think your 2 cents here are worth nothing as the analysis you did are one side of the coin and the deployment of Indian forces, air sqds facing Pakistan and the cold start kind of strategies being developed and other things deployed by keeping Pakistan in sight, is the other side of the coin. So both sides make one coin, and both sides need to be viewed.

If Pakistan is compared economically with India, that will be rubbish, but if Pak nukes and developed are viewed with respect to India that is the correct analysis, since India has superiority in conventional forces and its deployment of troops and its offensive warfare designs are a direct threat to pakistan and needs to be viewed seriously from our side. This is the sole thing which leads to people comparing, they don't compare India & Pakistan on economic factors or other ones.

 

[Secur]

Oh please, what a ****** retard. The author is deliberately trying to be creatively naive!

Nukes are the ultimate defense, they know it, we know it, everyone know it. @Every hater, please try to understand, PAKISTAN IS UNCONQUERABLE... PERIOD...

Suddenly keeping the enemy at bay is a terrible idea ! ... All Hail Propagandists !

Worked for three times , this deterrent , if any of our Eastern neighbors have any misconceptions and will sure as hell work in future ! First Use of Nuclear Weapons be our path ... I wonder if the author has heard of Samson's option ... Should have kept in mind that Islamabad deploys the very same strategy

 

[OrionHunter]

Those who talk of a nuclear exchange with gay abandon need to get their heads examined. Here's a video that will give you an idea of what to expect in a nuclear exchange.

There will be no place to run, no place to hide. Would you survive? The chances are almost nil. And if you do survive you'll soon starve to death due to radioactive contamination of crops and livestock.

Have a nice day, while it lasts.

 

[OrionHunter]

Ooops! Double post.