Do u think Pak would at first fight conventionally and then at some point use NASR if the advance cannot be stopped...
OR
would use NASR right in the beginning as soon as Indian forces enter Pak territory to send a strong message to deter any further hostilities?
Cold Start takes into Pakistan defence on the border, but the doctrine has armour and strike corps moving in quickly with resources already allocated on the border. So yes, first is conventional resistance. Would take 1 or 2 weeks to make those Nasr nuke ready after receiving orders to mobilize, assuming Nasr nukes are NOT a bluff. This means, Pakistan having to nuke Pakistani civilians areas under Indian control.
1) Utter destruction(by Pak nuclear strikes if India decided to go all out) just to get back at Pak for using NASRs and nuke Pak...getting nukes in return.
1, Tactical nukes are NOT real. You can use an ICBM to drop a nuke on Indian armoured core and call it tactical. Size/yield or the bomb does not matter, Nore does the method to drop the bomb, ie f-16 or Minuteman. Tactical nukes are determined by the TARGET they are dropped on!
2. Tactical nukes would invite a second full strike by Indian nukes. Reducing Pakistans nukes! Wrong decision on Paks part. Nuke first is the policy or don't nuke at all. Pakistani nukes are all within reach.
2) a much less damaging path where India doesn't decide on nuclear strikes on Pak(and therefore Pak doesn't either)...intensify operations, reinforce troops, open more fronts, and try to capture Pak territory...in order to sort of make up for such huge losses(of soldiers) by trying to quickly score a victory. In addition to painting Pak in a bad light internationally to score diplomatic victory.
Depends on the number of causalities. Theres a reason nukes are targeted at cities and bases. Conventional forces are spread out and nuking your own forces becomes a possibility in the fog of war. But if Pakistan uses 1 or 2, they'll use them all before India or the International community shuts them down.
In my opinion India would go for the second option. There is potential(depending on how it plays out) of still gaining something at the end despite the losses(caused by NASR).
With the first option...u guys lose massive amounts of troops with NASR strikes...and then both countries destroy each other...so India gained nothing basically...both countries just lost.
Second option is not possible for Pakistan. Using nukes and causing recoverable damage to the Indian military is NOT an option. Strategic nuking on a large scale and tactical use of nukes is the only option. If you drop one, be prepared to drop them all before its too late. Many Pakistani scholars also believe in tactical nuclear bluff as well. There is NO way to counter cold start conventionally or with nukes.
Conventionally Pakistan can not defeat India. Could be hard, but Pakistan will loose territory in Punjab.
With nukes, its game over for both and possibility China. Remember those missiles and nukes are largely thanks to Noko and PRC. India knows this. They going down, they might as well take out Pakistans cheerleader.
Cold Start was designed IMO to put pressure for diplomatic solution to terrorists attacks, going both ways. Since its arrival, top level really back level talks could be possibility, largely thanks to MMS and Musharaff. Cold start was approved under Congress and Mushraff reign. So the top brass a in sync. Now if only the middle men especially in Pakistan could see the same.
