Tactical nuclear missiles not a very smart idea

[Basel]

You don't have a second strike capability

Test us.

 

[OTTOMAN]

India doesn't have a credible nuclear device.... though it can have warheads from France or US.

You don't have a second strike capability.. And read my line carefully i clealy mentioned... not 100% will be destroyed but enough to let India survive a war

You don't have any strike capability.
Proof is that Pakistan is not nuked yet.

 

[$@rJen]

Test us.

ball is in your court .... you people are the one are threaten to use tactical nukes.... your own author has mentioned how suicidal it would be

You don't have any strike capability.
Proof is that Pakistan is not nuked yet.

Yes we don't have any... keep thinking that way..

 

[Basel]

ball is in your court .... you people are the one are threaten to use tactical nukes.... your own author has mentioned how suicidal it would be

Nope dear ball is in your court, because you are the ones dreaming to fight a war under nuclear threshold by developing Cold Start doctrine, Pakistan will only respond to that threat when time comes.

Yes it will be suicidal but the MAD is all about "If We Die You have to Die with Us".

 

[omegalamba7XL9]

Prahaar (Strike in Sanskrit) India's Solid-Fuel Surface-to-Surface Guided Short-range Tactical Ballistic Missile

But first things first: I had bravely predicted that the Obama-Nawaz meeting would last for no more than thirty minutes. It went on for two hours…which means egg on my face and the cup of humility in my hands. Predicting timelines in advance is always a silly undertaking.

The major point remains. The US is a super-duper power. That is still no reason for Pakistani leaders to think that they become baptised in holy water when they go on a pilgrimage there. Easy does it. When will we learn this and when will we cut the hyperbole?

The problem is that we measure everything by an Indian yardstick. Any US-Indian understanding gives us the shivers. More than the US it is India that we should learn to take more calmly. The US feting an Indian prime minister should not mean the end of the world for us. India has its own trajectory to follow and we ours. Seeing everything through an Indian prism scarcely enhances our standing. Yet day in and day out our leaders, both civil and military, keep raising the bogey of an Indian threat.

One of the good things to come from the 1971 war – which we lost and which led to the severance of East Pakistan – was our turning towards the Arab and Muslim world under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. For all the years that he was in power, India was off our radar screens. And we forgot about Kashmir, which was the subtle understanding at Simla. Indeed, for close to 16 years – right until the Kashmir uprising in 1989 – we never raised the subject anywhere.

It was India mismanaging its part of Kashmir, subverting the election process there and stoking the fires of resentment, which provoked the Kashmiris to rise against Indian rule. Had that revolt remained an indigenous affair it would have worked to the advantage of both the Kashmiri people and of Pakistan. But we – by which is meant the higher school of ideological policy, otherwise known as the ISI – had to step in where angels would have exercised greater caution.

It seemed a brilliant idea at the time, tying down umpteen Indian divisions in Indian-held Kashmir. But it has backfired since then, tarring Pakistan with the brush of cross-border terrorism.

What poisoned gifts have we not received from that wellspring of things unintended called the Afghan ‘jihad’? Misplaced triumphalism corrupted the thinking of an entire generation of our military men who, forgetting the American Stingers and the unending stream of dollars channelled through the good offices of the CIA and Saudi intelligence, were seduced by the thought that it was the power of Islam, the power of faith, which had driven the Soviets from the killing fields of Afghanistan.

Nor was that all…they chose to turn faith – or blind belief – into a defining principle of foreign and defence policy. From the cauldron of such thinking arose the doctrine of Kashmir ‘jihad’ – an idea whose time is over but whose vestiges or lingering traces remain in the patronage or indulgence still extended to non-state organisations ostensibly devoted to the liberation of Kashmir.

Kashmir cannot be liberated by arms. This is the overwhelming lesson of our accident-prone history. A strong and prosperous Pakistan, firmly set on the path of development, home to all that is good and uplifting in human thought and endeavour, can be as the North Star to Kashmiri hopes and aspirations. This is what we should aim at. The problem of Taiwan will not be settled overnight. We need to take a similar long-term view of Kashmir.

The lesson of Syria and Iraq, and that of Libya and Afghanistan, is that the meek or the defenceless do not inherit the earth. I recently attended a conference in Hong Kong and it was an eye-opening experience to see a delegate from Nepal and a few from Bangladesh openly and bitterly critical of Indian diktat and interference. With India yet to reach that level of maturity where it stops throwing its weight around vis-à-vis its neighbours, Pakistan cannot afford to lower its guard.

But this awareness is one thing. Paranoia is an altogether different commodity. Our army and air force, not to mention the navy, are enough to deter any notion of aggression – and this remains true even if a third of the army is now employed on the western marches in the war against so-called radical Islamism – an offshoot of: 1) the Afghan ‘jihad’; and 2) the American invasion of Afghanistan.

Without the Americans blundering into Afghanistan, especially the manner in which they went about it, we would still have had our extremism problem. The dragon’s teeth were scattered long ago. But the Americans made it infinitely worse.

I have gone off on a tangent. Despite all current preoccupations, including the military’s engagement along the Durand Line, Pakistan has strength enough to deter any aggression. And our nukes, what are they for? Aren’t they enough of a deterrent?

But if we say, as our generals do, that our strategic nuke capability is still not enough of a deterrent to deter an Indian conventional attack, then it either means that we are dealing with insanity or that our strategic nukes are so useless that they were best kept on a desert island.

This entire thesis rests on a frightening premise. It suggests, first, that India, despite our strategic nukes, can still launch a conventional attack and that to stop that we need smaller nukes – artillery batteries firing short-range nuclear-tipped missiles to stop Indian tanks from overwhelming our defences.

What kind of alarmism is this? If tactical nuclear missiles are the only defence against an Indian tank advance then the first thing we should be doing is disbanding the 1st and 6th armoured divisions – for we are already implying that they won’t be enough to stop an Indian attack. And when we deploy those missiles wouldn’t the Indians follow suit? Then wouldn’t we need more missiles to pre-empt an Indian second nuclear attack, and a third and so on?

This is a slippery path and it has no end. During the cold war the Americans and the Russians tried to match each other bomb for bomb and missile for missile – until they reached the point where each side could destroy not just themselves but the entire planet ten times over. India and Pakistan currently have the capability to destroy each other completely. Once a nuclear exchange starts nothing will be left – not Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, not Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. So what are our warriors – from both sides – talking about?

Forget about what the Americans are saying or what their concerns are. We should have the sense to think this through ourselves. India and Pakistan are more than self-sufficient in poverty, people, open-air latrines – incidentally, the largest in the world – tanks and nuclear armaments. Just as they don’t need more poverty they for sure don’t need more nuke bombs and missiles, whatever the fancy doctrines fuelling such crazy notions.

Tailpiece: But all is not grim and dark. The made-to-order survey outfits – Pildat funded by American money and Gallup Pakistan funded by God knows who – can always be depended upon to lighten the public mood. Their surveys, as the initiated know all too well, are largely exercises in unrestrained comedy. The latest Pildat survey puts Nawaz Sharif’s and Shahbaz Sharif’s popularity at near Hosni Mubarak levels. No wonder it has excited laughter far and wide.

Tactical nuclear missiles not a very smart idea - Ayaz Amir

Well i am of the view that Pakistan military should expand its role outside of sub continent. Muslim world especially, Middle east is in a phase of rebuilding and i mean in a decade or so the middle east map will change. Here i think is where Pakistan military and foreign office needs to engage a bit more.Those who disagree or hold the view that we should not, they need to understand that the present world is very small and we are not always effected by our immediate neighbors only and especially middle east is our business. I believe TNs eases off the pressure from our eastren front and almost nullify any enemy advancement from the east. Let your gaurd down and you will get hit right in the face enemy wont think about morals.
Poverty in Pakistan is not the result of the defence spending rather a result of corruption in civilian departments and corrupt politicians who only seek everything for themselves. I believe every last penny should be spent on one's defence if one needs to live free. During the prophet(p.b.u.h) time the most of the Sahbas(A.S) lived very poorly but they lived as free people under God. So there is a lesson to be learn here. Maybe civilian leadership and civilian people should get their act right and poverty can be dealt with. Any honest man with morals can't survive or serve honestly in civilian dept or in politics. You will have to either take,give,watch or know someone about taking bribes but you wont do anything. Police dept a dept that have a responsibility to protect people is on a mission in doing the opposite of protect and serve.Is it the responsibility of army to improve the standards of education and allot funds and in corruption free manner so they can be used as they are suppose too? Maybe cutting down on couple of family members of these politician on their foreign trips can educate a child to tenth grade in Pakistan. How many times have we seen whole family of Army chiefs or military delegates going with their wives,nephews,banjhas, Uncles or friends etc going with them when they are on a foreign trip?I didn't read anything about that in this article. Pakistan Army is doing the job that they took the oath to do and doing it quite well. Failures and corruption of civilian agencies and departments as well as politicians is not the faults of army and Army will not be lectured too about how to do their job. Its the failure of foreign office that till this day that we are facing the enemy and politicians are busy fighting among themselves seeking power and forgetting the kashmir cause. Time after time civilian leadership have farted out and lost wars on tables and not on field with the exception of 71 which was also a direct result of failure of 2 so called democratically elected political leaders who couldn't co exist . In plain and simple words i woulds say that In my humble opinion civilian leadership have no guts and no time for cause Pakistan. They can't talk to Saudis eye to eye Army chiefs does i wonder why maybe its better morals and knowing that they aint got sh*t on you.They cant stand up to UAE, scared to stand up and have their opinion heard to Americans or any other big power i ask why? When Army chiefs visit middle east,Europe, China or America countries show respect for them and know that they are serious business. Can the same be said about current PM or former President Mr 10%?
So please no need to lecture army about what steps they take or what weapon they make to protect Pakistan. Any and every means is still not good enough to protect a country history tells us and therefore no backing down.

 

[$@rJen]

Nope dear ball is in your court, because you are the ones dreaming to fight a war under nuclear threshold by developing Cold Start doctrine, Pakistan will only respond to that threat when time comes.

Yes it will be suicidal but the MAD is all about "If We Die You have to Die with Us".

Nope its in your side.. Bring your terrorists once again and see what happens then.... and its you who is threatening INdia with nukes evry other week... what a responsible nuclear state??? Big Claps....

No it's not MAD is aimed at destroying/limiting enemy's capability to strike India.. this will give us a chance. remmeber Pakistan a tiny state compared to India.. before Pakistan could take down India, Pakistan will be History

 

[OTTOMAN]

Yes we don't have any... keep thinking that way..

See.. below picture is of a granite mount, taken from distance of 50-60 miles, yet the land trembled under the feet of our PM.
When did you tested? and where?

 

[$@rJen]

See.. below picture is of a granite mount, taken from distance of 50-60 miles, yet the land trembled under the feet of our PM.
When did you tested? and where?

K... India has not tested anything... are you happy.. get a good sleep now

 

[Basel]

Nope its in your side.. Bring your terrorists once again and see what happens then.... and its you who is threatening INdia with nukes evry other week... what a responsible nuclear state??? Big Claps....

No it's not MAD is aimed at destroying/limiting enemy's capability to strike India.. this will give us a chance. remmeber Pakistan a tiny state compared to India.. before Pakistan could take down India, Pakistan will be History

Its good to talk to feel good but when things go very wrong (God forbid) you will be among many who may never know what hit them.

 

[$@rJen]

Its good to talk to feel good but when things go very wrong (God forbid) you will be among many who may never know what hit them.

Same goes for you.. atleast i might have a chance while you'll defiantly not

 

[Basel]

Same goes for you.. atleast i might have a chance while you'll defiantly not

I never said we will survive in MAD. Go read neutral think tanks research on results of any future India - Pakistan nuclear exchange.

Edit: for all those Indians who think they will survive nuclear war with Pakistan.

Quote:

India-Pakistan nuclear war could 'end human civilisation'
Even limited nuclear exchange would devastate food production around the world, accordingt to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
.newGigyaShare { display: none !impor

Both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons pointed at eachother. Photo: EPA

“Looking back on how much my bank was taking in fees made me sick…!”
From the people who built Skype, now there’s a clever new way to send money abroad saving you 89%
Sponsored by TransferWise
5:09AM GMT 10 Dec 2013
A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would set off a global famine that could kill two billion people and effectively end human civilization, a study said Tuesday.
Even if limited in scope, a conflict with nuclear weapons would wreak havoc in the atmosphere and devastate crop yields, with the effects multiplied as global food markets went into turmoil, the report said.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released an initial peer-reviewed study in April 2012 that predicted a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people.
In a second edition, the groups said they widely underestimated the impact in China and calculated that the world's most populous country would face severe food insecurity.
"A billion people dead in the developing world is obviously a catastrophe unparalleled in human history. But then if you add to that the possibility of another 1.3 billion people in China being at risk, we are entering something that is clearly the end of civilization," said Ira Helfand, the report's author.

Helfand said that the study looked at India and Pakistan due to the longstanding tensions between the nuclear-armed states, which have fought three full-fledged wars since independence and partition in 1947.
But Helfand said that the planet would expect a similar apocalyptic impact from any limited nuclear war. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than the US bombs that killed more than 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
"With a large war between the United States and Russia, we are talking about the possible - not certain, but possible - extinction of the human race.
"In this kind of war, biologically there are going to be people surviving somewhere on the planet but the chaos that would result from this will dwarf anything we've ever seen," Helfand said.
The study said that the black carbon aerosol particles kicked into the atmosphere by a South Asian nuclear war would reduce US corn and soybean production by around 10 percent over a decade.
The particles would also reduce China's rice production by an average of 21 percent over four years and by another 10 percent over the following six years.
The updated study also found severe effects on China's wheat, which is vital to the country despite its association with rice.
China's wheat production would plunge by 50 percent the first year after the nuclear war and would still be 31 percent below baseline a decade later, it said.
The study said it was impossible to estimate the exact impact of nuclear war. He called for further research, voicing alarm that policymakers in nuclear powers were not looking more thoroughly at the idea of a nuclear famine.
But he said, ultimately, the only answer was the abolition of nuclear weapons.
"This is a disaster so massive in scale that really no preparation is possible. We must prevent this," he said.
President Barack Obama pledged in 2009 to work toward abolition but said that the United States would keep nuclear weapons so long as others exist. Nine countries are believed to possess nuclear weapons, with Russia and the United States holding the vast majority.

Unquote:

India-Pakistan nuclear war could 'end human civilisation' - Telegraph

 

[$@rJen]

I never said we will survive in MAD. Go read neutral think tanks research on results of any future India - Pakistan nuclear exchange.

i know the results... rest of the areas will be blessed by nuclear winter... while some other neutral think tanks say India might have a chance while pakistan doesn't.... so pakistan should think thrice before starting a nuke war which it can't win

 

[Daghalodi]

i know the results... rest of the areas will be blessed by nuclear winter... while some other neutral think tanks say India might have a chance while pakistan doesn't.... so pakistan should think thrice before starting a nuke war which it can't win

I think china should nuke India after Pakistan nukes it to finish it off tottally so china can remain superpower in the region

 

[Humble Analyst]

Ar 60 kmph it takes just 2 minutes to cover 2kms for tanks. Before you come to your senses tanks will be in town.

Don't you think tat your tank movement is not under observation and your tanks are not lined up at 2 km distance. Be realistic.

 

[waz]

Some good points by the author.

The whole Indian army overwhelming Pakistan stuff is utter nonsense. Pakistan's army, conventionally, is more than a match for India. It has most of its firepower facing the East, and with a smaller landscape to defend that's another blow to any attacker.

Here is a great technical breakdown of any such conflict.

Could India's Military Really Crush Pakistan? | The National Interest

By Walter Ladwig.

Don't you think tat your tank movement is not under observation and your tanks are not lined up at 2 km distance. Be realistic.

He is a moronic troll who was banned today. That was his second ID. He doesn't need the dignity of a reply.