randomradio
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
Riiiggghhhhttt. Pakistan will NOT care what the International community thinks. Pakistan would never have developed Nasr if what you said was even remotely correct. It is your personal assumption, not even the Indian military brass thinks that way.
The development of Nasr and the deployment of nukes on Nasr are two different things. Nasr can be used as conventional artillery as well. The fact that Nasr with nukes has not yet been deployed is proof of that.
Yes, the consequences will be probably devastating. India would have to either not strike at all, proportionally strike (e.g. against the respective missile garrison) or unleash everything. In response, Pakistan will either proportionally strike or go all out. Its called escalation, read about it. Why do you think US is re-introducing tactical nukes for Trident warheads? Because they want a proportional response option. Regardless of what every keyboard warrior here thinks, an Indo-Pak nuclear exchange will be (relatively) gradual and proportional, providing both sides with option to cease-fire at any stage.
I doubt we will ever use tactical nukes. And as long as you allow us to get the first hit in, that's good enough for us. Our primary targets will be military in nature anyway.
There's no point applying experiences of the US and Russia in the India-Pak context. They have far too many nukes.
It doesn't matters for Pakistan whether India is working on it or not.
And MaRVs are not necessarily air-breathing, both the Avangard and Starry-Sky 2 are HGVs. Similarly the US programs, except the HABV, are HGVs. Even something like DF-21's MaRV would be a game-changer in the subcontinent.
The Avangard does mach 27. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that you will get such speeds from just 1000Km away?
I'd still love to see what Pak has in store. Again, there's no point applying China or US or Russia for Pakistan. Pakistan's industry has to come up with MaRVs. Whatever the case, it's going to have to exceed mach 18.
The concept is stupid and dumb. The RVs heat in excess of 5000 degrees Celsius. Besides, the atmospheric distortion is too much for the laser to be effective. I told you to read up on the structure and composition of the RV, but noooo. There is a reason that neither of the G-5 have considered it as a feasible option.
Current technology is not feasible for it. Solid state lasers have not even reached 100KW yet. Whereas you need dozens of MW for BMD in order to get both range and intensity just for boost phase interception. So all of this is far into the future. Just getting boost phase interception by 2025-30 will be a big deal.
RVs on ICBMs heat up to 10000 deg C, but lasers can still structurally damage it. A warhead still undergoes pyrolysis upon reentry. The tech for it doesn't exist today, that's the only difference.
But boost phase lasers will still severely degrade Pakistan's BMs.
Pakistan forcing India to spend more (more than an order of magnitude) on conventional weapons and missile defenses, while keeping the strategic balance with weapons developed at a fraction of a fraction of its military budget...sounds quite okay to me. Not sure about Indians though.
Sure. We are spending on missile defences and conventional forces while also keeping China in mind, not just Pakistan.
Anyway, we have completely digressed from your original point. You said we are building new shelters, getting BMD and Brahmos for counterforce. The new shelters plan was always there. Brahmos and most other tactical weapons are currently unavailable for counterforce strikes. And BMD is still many years away. So there's really nothing to worry about in the short term at least. And since you say Pakistan has the ability to defeat any kind of BMD, then there's even less to worry about.